139 A.3d 385
R.I.2016Background
- Michael Morse, a long-serving Providence fire-rescue captain, applied for accidental disability retirement after a back injury on August 10, 2012; he had prior work-related back injuries in 2009 and 2011 and remained on injured-on-duty status for years.
- The Providence ordinance requires examination by three physicians for accidental disability determinations; Morse was examined by three IMEs: Drs. Lussier and Gordon found disability (attributing it to the August 2012 incident or cumulative work injuries), while Dr. Morgan found no permanent injury and no work restrictions.
- At a board medical-subcommittee hearing, the board’s medical adviser and city solicitor relied on a longstanding board ‘‘unanimity’’ policy requiring all three IMEs to find total/permanent disability; the subcommittee recommended denial and the full board denied Morse’s application with no dissent.
- The board’s written decision relied solely on lack of unanimity among the three IMEs and made no detailed factual findings weighing the physicians’ reports or treating records.
- Morse petitioned for certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court arguing the unanimity rule is contrary to the ordinance and effectively delegates board authority to a single dissenting physician.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Providence Retirement Board may impose a rule requiring unanimity among the three IMEs to grant accidental disability retirement | Morse: The ordinance does not require unanimity; the board’s rule is contrary to the plain language and abdicates the board’s factfinding duty to a single physician | Board: Legislative history and prior ordinance edits indicate the council intended unanimity; the board lacks discretion to grant benefits absent unanimous IME certification | Court: Unanimity requirement is not compelled by the ordinance, is unreasonable and absurd in application; board misread ordinance, must reconsider and make reasoned factual findings weighing all evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 15 A.3d 957 (R.I. 2011) (background on accidental-disability standard and review scope)
- Castelli v. Carcieri, 961 A.2d 277 (R.I. 2008) (use of “shall” indicates a mandatory duty)
- Coyne v. Milan Police Pension Bd. ex rel. Jones, 807 N.E.2d 1276 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (rejecting a unanimity rule for examining physicians as absurd and preclusive of meaningful adjudication)