South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Addie L. Holiday-Lykes vs. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems

AGENCY:
South Carolina Budget and Control Board

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Addie L. Holiday-Lykes

Respondent:
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
03-ALJ-30-0436-CC

APPEARANCES:
Petitioner & Representative:
Addie L. Holiday-Lykes, Pro se

Respondent & Representative:
South Carolina Budge and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems, Sarah G. Major, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

I. Introduction


Addie L. Holiday-Lykes (Holiday-Lykes) seeks an order directing the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems (Retirement System) to grant her disability retirement benefits under S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003). The Retirement System opposes Holiday-Lykes' position for two reasons.


First, she is not mentally or physically incapacitated to a degree that prevents her from performing her job duties. Second, and in any event, the degree of incapacity that is present is not likely to be permanent. The Retirement Systems' denial of benefits to Holiday-Lykes' coupled with her request for a contested case places jurisdiction in the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD). S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003).




II. Analysis


A. Findings of Fact


I find by a preponderance of the evidence the following facts:


Holiday-Lykes filed with the Retirement System a retirement disability application in July 2002 seeking a determination that her medical condition made her mentally and physically unable to perform her job duties as a secretary at Perry Alternative School, a public school within Richland County School District One.


1. Medical Conditions


Holiday-Lykes suffers from several medical conditions. She has glaucoma which has caused some loss of peripheral vision and has resulted in two surgical procedures due to the condition. Nonetheless, her overall corrected vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. She remains under treatment.


Holiday-Lykes also has diabetes and hypertension. However, both are well controlled, and she has no other significant heart problems.


In terms of body movements, while rotator cuff tendinitis is present, her range of motion is within normal limits. In addition, she has a sciatica problem with mild degenerative changes but for which she receives treatment via medication and physical therapy. Also, she has an obesity problem presenting some physical impairment.


And finally, she has experienced depression and anxiety. These conditions are currently under control with treatment ongoing.


2. Job Duties


Holiday-Lykes believes her medical condition prevents her from performing her job duties. Her duties include typing letters; completing a number of weekly, monthly, and annual reports; ordering supplies; coordinating enrollment materials; and preparing student record files. In addition, she coordinates intervention for disciplinary problems when a supervisor is not present, and she also coordinates student disciplinary hearings.


On a daily basis, her job requires the ability to sit for 5 or 6 hours. However, during that period she may stand or walk to perform other duties. In fact, her duties require an ability to walk or stand 1 to 2 hours a day. The job also requires the ability to lift objects weighing less than 10 pounds.




3. Procedural History


Upon receipt of the application, the Retirement System forwarded the claim to the South Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) for evaluation. At VR, a disability examiner requested and obtained an orthopedic examination of Holiday-Lykes, a medical examination of her glaucoma, and a medical evaluation of her file by a medical consultant. After a review of the accumulated file and of the examinations and evaluations rendered by medical personnel, VR recommended on January 17, 2003 that the claim be denied.


The Medical Board for the South Carolina Retirement Systems, a three member body composed of three practicing physicians, reviewed VR's denial recommendation and on January 28, 2003, agreed. Due to Holiday-Lykes’ request for a reconsideration of that decision, her claim received a second VR review by a second disability examiner.


The second disability examiner requested an independent evaluation of Holiday-Lykes' file by a second medical consultant. After reviewing the medical consultant's report and the file, the disability examiner on April 7, 2003, recommended denial of the claim. On April 15, 2003, the Medical Board again recommended denying the claim.


Holiday-Lykes then obtained a review by the Retirement Systems' Director who utilized the services of a vocational consultant at an administrative conference held on June 16, 2003. The vocational consultant relied upon the information presented at the conference and upon the accumulated examinations and evaluations before reaching a recommendation to deny the claim.


On September 11, 2003, the Director issued the Retirement Systems' Final Agency Determination denying Ms. Holiday-Lykes' claim for disability retirement. The matter is now here as a contested case.


B. Conclusions of Law


Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:


The controlling statute explains in pertinent part that "a member . . . may be retired by the board . . . on a disability retirement allowance if the medical board . . . 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). Thus, the instant case turns on whether Holiday-Lykes is "mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of duty" and whether "the incapacity is likely to be permanent."


Holiday-Lykes has established six medical and psychological conditions having the potential to impact her ability to perform her duties. However, after considering each condition separately and after considering all conditions as a whole, the evidence does not establish that she is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of her duties as a secretary.


First, she has a medical diagnosis of glaucoma. However, an ophthalmologist who performed an independent eye examination found only a slight physical impairment as a result of the glaucoma. Moreover, Holiday-Lykes has a corrected vision of 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. Also, the evidence establishes that while the glaucoma condition can worsen if not treated, treatment is available in this case. Finally, expert testimony establishes that the degree of glaucoma present does not prevent her from performing secretarial duties.


Second, Holiday-Lykes has diabetes and hypertension. The evidence does not establish that either condition will prevent her from performing her job. Both conditions are well controlled and medical personnel have concluded the conditions are not severe. Further, medical personnel reviewing the applicable records found no significant heart problems that would prevent her from performing her job duties. Thus, these conditions do not present physical limitations sufficient to prevent her from performing her job duties.


Third, Holiday-Lykes has a history of rotator cuff tendinitis. The evidence establishes that this condition would not prevent her from performing her job duties. In particular, an examining physician found that her shoulder motion was within normal limits and the medical consultants who reviewed her file for VR found her shoulder conditions were not severe. Thus, no limitations exist preventing her from performing secretarial duties.


Fourth, Holiday-Lykes has a medical diagnosis of sciatica for which she has been treated with muscle relaxers, pain medication, and physical therapy. Additionally, while her x-rays show some mild degenerative changes, such changes are not uncommon for a woman of her age. In addition, the medical consultants reviewing Holiday-Lykes' file found these conditions were not severe and thus presented no physical limitations sufficient to satisfy the disability requirements.


Fifth, obesity is a relevant factor since one medical consultant found that Holiday-Lykes had severe obesity resulting in certain physical impairments. In particular, the physical limitations noted were frequently lifting over 25 pounds, not standing or walking more than 6 hours, and not sitting more than 6 hours in an eight hour day. However, these physical limitations do not preclude Holiday-Lykes from performing her job duties. Rather, her duties require the ability to sit for 5 or 6 hours but not more than 6. Rather, since she stands or walks to perform other duties, the sitting requirement is not continuous. In fact, her duties require an ability to walk or stand but for only 1 to 2 hours a day, not 6. Finally, the job requires the ability to lift objects weighing less than 10 pounds, not 25 pounds.


Sixth, some evidence of depression and anxiety is present in this case. The medical history indicates an anxiety disorder but it is one that is under control. Further, while Holiday-Lykes began receiving treatment for depression in May of 2003, there is no indication in the medical records that the condition is not treatable or that it prohibits her from doing her job as a secretary. Rather, her condition is currently treatable with medication and does not prohibit her from working.



III. Order


Accordingly, whether considered individually or as a whole, the medical conditions of Holiday-Lykes do not establish that she is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing her job duties. Thus, disability retirement benefits under S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003) must be denied.


AND IT IS SO ORDERED

______________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge


Dated: February 17, 2004

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court