Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System , 142 A.3d 581 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT                                      Reporter of Decisions
    Decision:    
    2016 ME 91
    Docket:      Ken-15-395
    Submitted
    On Briefs: May 26, 2016
    Decided:     June 14, 2016
    Panel:       SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
    SARA J.T. BEHR
    v.
    MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
    PER CURIAM
    [¶1] Sara J.T. Behr appeals from a judgment entered by the Superior Court
    (Kennebec County, Murphy, J.) affirming the decision of the Maine Public
    Employees Retirement System (MPERS) Board of Trustees (the Board). The
    Board had affirmed the decision of the executive director’s designee, who had
    denied Behr’s application for disability retirement benefits.       See 5 M.R.S.
    §§ 17451(1), 17925(4) (2015). Because the record does not compel a finding that
    Behr met her burden to prove that “it is impossible to perform the duties of [her]
    employment position,” 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1)(B) (2015), we affirm.
    [¶2] In December 2012, Behr filed an application for disability retirement
    benefits, see 5 M.R.S. § 17925 (2015), alleging that she was unable to perform her
    job as a policy development specialist for the Maine Department of Transportation.
    2
    Behr asserted that she was disabled due to Lyme disease, mononucleosis,
    fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression,
    anxiety, and insomnia. On appeal, Behr only challenges the denial of benefits as to
    her fibromyalgia.
    [¶3] We review directly the Board’s decision. Kelley v. Me. Pub. Emps.
    Ret. Sys., 
    2009 ME 27
    , ¶ 16, 
    967 A.2d 676
    . We will reverse a Board finding that a
    party failed to meet his or her burden of proof “only if the record compels a
    contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference.” 
    Id. Contrary to
    Behr’s contentions, the record does not compel a finding that Behr met her burden
    to prove that her fibromyalgia caused functional limitations that made it impossible
    for her to do her job.
    [¶4] The Board adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommended final decision,
    which found that there were “significant inconsistencies and voids in the evidence
    of medically-based functional limitations,” especially given MPERS’s evidence
    about Behr’s behavior at work. See 5 M.R.S. § 17106(4)(C) (2015) (contemplating
    that the Board will determine what weight to give the evidence); 5 M.R.S.
    § 17106-A(3) (2015) (permitting hearing officers to accept, reject, or determine the
    weight to be given any evidence). For example, Behr’s supervisor testified that he
    observed that Behr’s mood would change depending on whether she was
    interacting socially with coworkers or focusing on her work.
    3
    [¶5] In addition, the Board found that Behr’s evidence regarding her alleged
    functional limitations was less persuasive than the medical board’s reports,
    see 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2015), which the Board properly considered as
    evidence, see Kelley, 
    2009 ME 27
    , ¶ 25, 
    967 A.2d 676
    . Here, the medical board
    twice reviewed the entire record and opined that the medical records contained no
    objective medical evidence of any functional limitations caused by Behr’s
    fibromyalgia. In its second report, the medical board noted that Behr’s significant
    efforts in pursuing her appeal to the Board demonstrated her capacity for sedentary
    work. Because the medical board’s reports are a proper part of the evidentiary
    record, the record does not compel a contrary finding. See Anderson v. Me. Pub.
    Emps. Ret. Sys., 
    2009 ME 134
    , ¶ 28, 
    985 A.2d 501
    (holding that the record did not
    compel a finding that the employee had proved that her condition would be
    permanent when the medical board had written a report “questioning [the
    employee’s] evidence of permanency”).
    [¶6] Behr’s remaining arguments on appeal do not warrant discussion.
    The entry is:
    Judgment affirmed.
    4
    On the briefs:
    Sara J.T. Behr, appellant pro se
    Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Christopher L. Mann,
    Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
    appellee Maine Public Employees Retirement System
    Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2014-74
    FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
    

Document Info

Citation Numbers: 2016 ME 91, 142 A.3d 581

Filed Date: 6/14/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023