Derice v. Maine State Retirement System

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 19, 2005
• Docket: CUMap-05-019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-019 j' fi , - , 1 (

15 GAIL DERICE,

Appellant v.

MAINE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Appellee

This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Gail Dericefs appeal from a

final decision of the Board of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement System

denying her an award of disability benefits pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Board of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement Systein found the

following facts. In February 1998, Petitioner began receiving disability

retirement benefits as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),

depression, and panic disorder with agoraphobia.' Her condition was caused by

a physical attack by a student in Windam, Maine, where she was working as an

art teacher. In 2003, Petitioner started her own incorporated business as a

medical aesthetician performing clinical skin care. She sought retraining for t h s

occupation w h l e she was receiving disability benefits. Although Petitioner has

YO full-time employees, a massage therapist, and a receptioi~ist,her 2003 tax

records indicate that her business operated at a loss of over $35,000.

1 Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder whereby one has a fear of public places. Doctor Carlyle Voss, a psychiatrist, has evaluated Petitioner on three

occasions, in 1998,2002, and 2004. In 2002, Doctor Voss concluded that Petitioner

did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder. In 2004, Doctor

Voss stated in his report that Petitioner had "essentially recovered" from the

effects of the traumatic episode that occurred while she was teachng and that

she was able to function with minimal limitation. At the hearing before the

Board, Petitioner's treating psychotherapist, Doctor Linda Doyle, testified that

she agreed ulith Doctor Vossfs 2004 report, however she did not think that

Petitioner had made a full recovery. Doctor Doyle further testified that although

self-employment is a good fit for Petitioner at this time, it is not the only way

Petitioner could succeed professionally. According to Petitioner's own

testimony, she can work for any doctor in the Portland area as a medical

aesthetician. The Board ultimately concluded that while Petitioner still has

symptoms of her disorders, they do not render her "disabled" and unable to

perform all the functions of a full-time job as an aesthetician.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that she remains disabled because she is unable to

return to teaching. Petitioner further contends that because her business is

operating at a loss, she is not able to engage in substantially gainful activity and

should still receive disability benefits. When the Superior Court acts as an

intermediate appellate court it reviews the decision of the Board directly for

"errors of law, abuse of discretion or findings of fact unsupported by competent

and substantial evidence in the record." Riclzarsoi~v. Board of Tr~~stees of the Maine

State Retiremeizt Systenz, 1998 ME 171, T4, 714 A.2d 154, 156. As the party seelung

to overturn the agency decision, Petitioner must demonstrate that "no competent evidence supports the Board's decision and that the record compels a contrary

result." Id.

Pursuant to 5 h4.R.S.A. 5 17929(B)(4),"if it is determined, on the basis of the

examinations or tests . . . that the disability of a person no longer exists, the

payment of the disability retirement benefit ceases." The follo~wingconditions

render a person is mentally or physically disabled:

A. The incapacity is expected to be permanent;

B. That it is impossible to perform the duties of the member's employmei~tposition;

C. After the incapacity has continued for 2 years, the incapacity must render the member zuzable to clrgage i n a ~ z ysubsfrrntirrlly gai77fUl activity' for which the member is qualified by training, education or experience; and

D. The incapacity may be revealed by examinations or tests conducted in accordance urith section 17926.

5 M.R.S.A. 5 17921 (emphasis added).

Petitiol~er'sbelief that the determination of whether she is disabled depends

on whether she can return to her teaching position is misguided. Pursuant to the

statute, if Petitioner is able to engage in any substai~tiallygainful activity for

which she is qualified by training, she is no longer disabled.

In this case, the record is replete of competent and substantial evidence

supporting the Board's decision. ~ l t h o u g hPetitioner has not made a full

recovery, Doctor Voss and Doctor Doyle agree that she no longer suffers from

tlie debilitating conditions she exhibited in 1998. Furthermore, Petitioner has

taken the initiative to become trained as a medical aesthetician. She started her 2Substai~tialgainful activity means the ability to perforin work resulting in annual earnings that exceeded 80% of her average final compensation as adjusted for inflation, w h c h amount is $29,848.86. Rules of the Maine State Retirement System, Chapter 507(1)(A)(2). own business and hires and supervises employees. According to Doctor Doyle,

however, self-employment is not the only professional path for Petitioner.

Rather, she has the opportunity to work as a medical esthetician for any doctor in

Portland, which would amount to a substantially gainful activity for whch she is

qualified. Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board had substantial evidence

to conclude that Petitioner is no longer disabled and that her benefits should

cease.

The decision of the Board of Trustees of the Maine Retirement System is

AFFIRMED. < OF COURTS 3erland County .O. Box 287 Maine 041 12-0287

JAMES BOWIE AAG 6 S T A T E HOUSE S T A T I O N \

AUGUSTA ME 04333

:OF COURTS ~erlandCounty 0. Box 287 Maine 041 12-0287

PORTLAND ME 04112