STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-E.7~31 ,,)/II ~--k <- f\/-' ,{/b 0 () (t, 4/ CALISTA CAMPBELL
Petitioner
v. DECISION AND ORDER
MAINE. STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent
This case is in front of the court on petitioner's M.R. Civ P. 80C petition for
judicial review of the final agency action of the Maine State Retirement System (the
Board)..
The petition for judicial review is a result of petitioner being denied her claim for
disability retirement benefits by the Board. The Board's determination was based on its
opinion that her back injury did not make it permanently impossible for her to perform
her duties of employment, as of her last day of service. 1 The facts are as recited in the
final appeal to the Board. (R. at 19.1-19.3.)
Petitioner worked as a police officer for the City of Biddeford, a requirement of
that position is that officers wear a duty belt weighing approximately 20 pounds.
Petitioner was injured on March 9, 2004 after falling down some stairs. In April 2004
1 Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1) "Disabled" means that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated under the following conditions: A. The incapacity is expected to be permanent; B. That itis impossible to perform the duties of the member's employment position ... 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(2) "Employment Position" means: A. The position in which the member is employed at the time the member becomes incapacitated; or B. A position of comparable stature and equal or greater compensation and benefits which is made available to the member by the member's employer. 2
she underwent laparoscopic surgery. Petitioner returned to work doing light duty, but
left when that work became unavailable on June 30, 2005.
After her injury, petitioner began treatment for her lower back pain with Dr. Paul
Upham. In May of 2004, Dr. Upham referred petitioner for osteopathic manipulative
therapy in May. He reported that she benefited from the treatment until she had a
"flare of pain when she tried to wear her duty belt as I was attempting to progress her
back to her regular job."
Dr. Upham then referred petitioner to Dr. Glass and subsequently Dr. Pier for
injection treatment. Dr. Glass treated petitioner from August 2004-November 2004.
Toward the end of that period, Dr. Glass described Campbell's problems as chronic
poor posture and deconditioning and that she was only a marginal participant in
rehabilitation and was recalcitrant to reassurance and committed to disability. Dr.
Glass explained that attempts to return petitioner to full duty were "confounded by her
unwillingness to pursue full duty work." Dr. Glass further stated at the time of her
discharge, "all findings regarding her work-related injury had completely resolved."
Petitioner believed she.still exhibited symptoms and in January 2005 she saw Dr.
Pier for lidocaine injection of sacroiliac and lower lumbar joints, followed by a
diagnostic lower lumbar medial branch block in early February 2005.
Dr. Upham noted that many treatments were tried with limited success and
suggested that petitioner should see a counselor to determine if there was a psychiatric
component to the pain. Petitioner was resistant but did have a visit to a counselor. In
August 2005, Dr. Upham told petitioner that she had had all possible medical
treatments and strongly encouraged that she seek psychiatric assistance. Petitioner did
not seek such care because, as she stated, workers compensation insurance did not
cover it. Upham continued a restriction of only three hours a day wearing the duty belt, 3
however did not rule out that her continued complaints were a result of secondary
gain?
In November 2005, petitioner was referred to a Dr. Jorgenson for prolotherapy, a
form of muscle injection treatment. Jorgenson diagnosed an injury to the attachment
points of ligaments and tendons to bones. He described his treatment as "a permanent
repair," and noted good response to the first of three injection treatments. He said in
April 2006 that petitioner should be able to wear her duty belt after the course of
prolotherapy and associated core strengthening were complete estimated based on
projected healing times to be in late 2006. At the time of petitioner's fourth set of
injections in August 2006, petitioner reported to Jorgenson no overall improvement.
The Medical Board made two evaluations of petitioner's case. On December 15,
2005 it stated that there was insufficient objective medical evidence to ascribe functional
limitations and on July 20, 2006 it noted that Jorgensen made no recommendations
regarding work limitations and petitioner war responding favorably to treatment.
Discussion:
Factual determinations must be sustained unless shown to be clearly erroneous.
Imagineering v. Superintendent of Insurance, 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991) (noting that
the Court recognizes no distinction between the clearly erroneous and substantial
evidence in the record standards of review for factual determinations made by
administrative agencies). "A party seeking review of an agency's findings must prove
they are unsupported by any competent evidence." Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of
Banking, 684 A.2d 1304, 1306 (Me. 1996) (emphasis added).
2 "a benefit (as sympathetiC attention) associated with mental illness." See http://medical.merriam webster.coml medical/ secondary+gai n 4
Petitioner's argument is solely predicated on the failure of the Board to evaluate
medical evidence contrary to Dr. Glass's expert opinion. That means that in order to
prevail she must demonstrate that there isn't any competent evidence to support the
agency's finding. Id. Petitioner points out the existence of what it calls "the crushing
weight of medical evidence contrary" to the opinion of Dr. Glass and the decision of the
Board. Particularly it points to: Dr. Upham's diagnosis on the date of the injury (R. at
1.270.); Dr. Pier's initial evaluation (R. at 1.358.); Dr. Haigney's initial report (R. at 7.6.);
the evaluation of a physical report (R. at 1.319.).
The court finds that the evidence in the record, despite evidence to the contrary,
comprises competent evidence to support the agency's finding that as of her last day of
service it was not impossible for petitioner to perform the duties of her employment
position. "Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported."
Seider v. Board of Examiners of Physcologists, 2000 ME 206, err 9, 762 A.2d 551, 555 (citation omitted).
The entry is
The petition is DENIED and the decision of the Maine State Retirement System is AFFIRMED.
April :if',2008 Date Filed _--=4u /--!.6'-1-/-"°'--L7 _ Kennebec Docket No. _--"A'"'-'P~0~7~----"3~1'____ _ County
Action _ _------'P. . . t.....i~t.....i....,o'-Ln'""-.... P."-.;, f l.Lo.... r-""R"'e-"v--"i....e""w'---- _ 80C
J~ Mills
YS. Mtline <::t-ate Retirement Systems Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney .f:.a4.4:B.£-a-.f:.a~4.-.p-£-e-£.e James M.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-E.7~31 ,,)/II ~--k <- f\/-' ,{/b 0 () (t, 4/ CALISTA CAMPBELL
Petitioner
v. DECISION AND ORDER
MAINE. STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent
This case is in front of the court on petitioner's M.R. Civ P. 80C petition for
judicial review of the final agency action of the Maine State Retirement System (the
Board)..
The petition for judicial review is a result of petitioner being denied her claim for
disability retirement benefits by the Board. The Board's determination was based on its
opinion that her back injury did not make it permanently impossible for her to perform
her duties of employment, as of her last day of service. 1 The facts are as recited in the
final appeal to the Board. (R. at 19.1-19.3.)
Petitioner worked as a police officer for the City of Biddeford, a requirement of
that position is that officers wear a duty belt weighing approximately 20 pounds.
Petitioner was injured on March 9, 2004 after falling down some stairs. In April 2004
1 Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1) "Disabled" means that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated under the following conditions: A. The incapacity is expected to be permanent; B. That itis impossible to perform the duties of the member's employment position ... 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(2) "Employment Position" means: A. The position in which the member is employed at the time the member becomes incapacitated; or B. A position of comparable stature and equal or greater compensation and benefits which is made available to the member by the member's employer. 2
she underwent laparoscopic surgery. Petitioner returned to work doing light duty, but
left when that work became unavailable on June 30, 2005.
After her injury, petitioner began treatment for her lower back pain with Dr. Paul
Upham. In May of 2004, Dr. Upham referred petitioner for osteopathic manipulative
therapy in May. He reported that she benefited from the treatment until she had a
"flare of pain when she tried to wear her duty belt as I was attempting to progress her
back to her regular job."
Dr. Upham then referred petitioner to Dr. Glass and subsequently Dr. Pier for
injection treatment. Dr. Glass treated petitioner from August 2004-November 2004.
Toward the end of that period, Dr. Glass described Campbell's problems as chronic
poor posture and deconditioning and that she was only a marginal participant in
rehabilitation and was recalcitrant to reassurance and committed to disability. Dr.
Glass explained that attempts to return petitioner to full duty were "confounded by her
unwillingness to pursue full duty work." Dr. Glass further stated at the time of her
discharge, "all findings regarding her work-related injury had completely resolved."
Petitioner believed she.still exhibited symptoms and in January 2005 she saw Dr.
Pier for lidocaine injection of sacroiliac and lower lumbar joints, followed by a
diagnostic lower lumbar medial branch block in early February 2005.
Dr. Upham noted that many treatments were tried with limited success and
suggested that petitioner should see a counselor to determine if there was a psychiatric
component to the pain. Petitioner was resistant but did have a visit to a counselor. In
August 2005, Dr. Upham told petitioner that she had had all possible medical
treatments and strongly encouraged that she seek psychiatric assistance. Petitioner did
not seek such care because, as she stated, workers compensation insurance did not
cover it. Upham continued a restriction of only three hours a day wearing the duty belt, 3
however did not rule out that her continued complaints were a result of secondary
gain?
In November 2005, petitioner was referred to a Dr. Jorgenson for prolotherapy, a
form of muscle injection treatment. Jorgenson diagnosed an injury to the attachment
points of ligaments and tendons to bones. He described his treatment as "a permanent
repair," and noted good response to the first of three injection treatments. He said in
April 2006 that petitioner should be able to wear her duty belt after the course of
prolotherapy and associated core strengthening were complete estimated based on
projected healing times to be in late 2006. At the time of petitioner's fourth set of
injections in August 2006, petitioner reported to Jorgenson no overall improvement.
The Medical Board made two evaluations of petitioner's case. On December 15,
2005 it stated that there was insufficient objective medical evidence to ascribe functional
limitations and on July 20, 2006 it noted that Jorgensen made no recommendations
regarding work limitations and petitioner war responding favorably to treatment.
Discussion:
Factual determinations must be sustained unless shown to be clearly erroneous.
Imagineering v. Superintendent of Insurance, 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991) (noting that
the Court recognizes no distinction between the clearly erroneous and substantial
evidence in the record standards of review for factual determinations made by
administrative agencies). "A party seeking review of an agency's findings must prove
they are unsupported by any competent evidence." Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of
Banking, 684 A.2d 1304, 1306 (Me. 1996) (emphasis added).
2 "a benefit (as sympathetiC attention) associated with mental illness." See http://medical.merriam webster.coml medical/ secondary+gai n 4
Petitioner's argument is solely predicated on the failure of the Board to evaluate
medical evidence contrary to Dr. Glass's expert opinion. That means that in order to
prevail she must demonstrate that there isn't any competent evidence to support the
agency's finding. Id. Petitioner points out the existence of what it calls "the crushing
weight of medical evidence contrary" to the opinion of Dr. Glass and the decision of the
Board. Particularly it points to: Dr. Upham's diagnosis on the date of the injury (R. at
1.270.); Dr. Pier's initial evaluation (R. at 1.358.); Dr. Haigney's initial report (R. at 7.6.);
the evaluation of a physical report (R. at 1.319.).
The court finds that the evidence in the record, despite evidence to the contrary,
comprises competent evidence to support the agency's finding that as of her last day of
service it was not impossible for petitioner to perform the duties of her employment
position. "Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported."
Seider v. Board of Examiners of Physcologists, 2000 ME 206, err 9, 762 A.2d 551, 555 (citation omitted).
The entry is
The petition is DENIED and the decision of the Maine State Retirement System is AFFIRMED.
April :if',2008 Date Filed _--=4u /--!.6'-1-/-"°'--L7 _ Kennebec Docket No. _--"A'"'-'P~0~7~----"3~1'____ _ County
Action _ _------'P. . . t.....i~t.....i....,o'-Ln'""-.... P."-.;, f l.Lo.... r-""R"'e-"v--"i....e""w'---- _ 80C
J~ Mills
YS. Mtline <::t-ate Retirement Systems Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney .f:.a4.4:B.£-a-.f:.a~4.-.p-£-e-£.e James M. Bowie, AAG ~"T~-~-4 6 State House Station W-a~fi~-Me4fle--~~~4-- Augusta, ME 04333-0006 Benjamin DeTroy, Esq. ChriHtopher L. Mann, AAG Sharon, Leary & DeTroy PO Box 3130 Auburn, ME 04212-3130
Date of Entry
4/6/07 Petition for Review, filed. s/Campbell, Pro Se
4/13/07 Letter entering appearance, filed. s/Bowie, AAG
5/4/07 Certified Copy of Administrative Record from the Mai.ne State Retirement System, filed. s/Larochelle, Appeals Clerk (IN VAULT)
MSRS Rules, filed. 5/7/07 Notice of briefing schedule mailed to Pltf. and atty of record. 6/14/07 Petitioner's Brief, filed. s/DeTroy, Esq. Motion To Supplement The Record On Rule 80C Appeal, filed. s/D~Troy, Esq.
7/3/07 Respondent's Memorandum In Opposition To Petitioner's Motion To Supplement The Record, filed 7/2/07. s/Bowie, AAG Proposed Order, filed.
7/16/07 Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petition for Review, filed. s/Bowie, AAG 8/30/07 8/29/07:0RDER:and the entry shall be: 1. Petitioner's mbt~on(to supplment the record is DENIED. 2. Petitioner's proffered evidence will be excluded from consideration in the course of this appeal. s/Studstrup 8/30/07 Copies mailed to parties
Notice of sO!.tmg tot =3L
4/8/08 Hearing held with the Han. JustieR Joseph Jaber. Benjamin DeTroy, Esq. for the ,Petitioner. Ch~tstopher Mann, AAG for the R .. ",nnnrl .. "t-. r.nnrt- t-,\ r",kl" mArrl"r llnnl"r Rnv1Rl"ml"nt.