Monroe v. State Employees' Retirement System
293 Mich. App. 594
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Monroe, a registered nurse at Alger Maximum Correctional Facility, was suspended in Sep 2007 and terminated in Nov 2007.
- Post-suspension, Monroe began mental health treatment for major depressive disorder, PTSD, and generalized anxiety disorder and began receiving social security disability benefits.
- Jan 2008 IME by Dr. Robbins opined Monroe could not work due to major depressive disorder but that it was not a permanent disability, predicting remission in 2–3 months.
- Apr 2008 IME by Dr. Van Holla found ongoing disability from major depressive disorder and anxiety, recommending pharmacological management and reevaluation in 4–6 months.
- Apr 2008 Monroe applied for nonduty disability retirement; Jul 2008 psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Miller suggested current unfitness to work but potential improvement with treatment over 6–12 months.
- Oct 2008 independent medical advisor Dr. Kaul reviewed records and concluded Monroe may improve with ongoing psychiatric care and was not permanently disabled; SERSB denied benefits; circuit court and then this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process given AG roles on both sides | Monroe argues AG office participation creates bias | No actual bias; AGs represent state interests, not advocate against Monroe | No due process violation; no bias established |
| Meaning of 'conducts a medical examination' in MCL 38.24(1)(b) | Kaul's review of records satisfied statute; examiner need not personally examine | Statute requires personal examination; Kaul did not perform one | Kaul's review satisfied statute per agency rule 38.35(1) and Rovas interpretation |
| SERSB denial supported by substantial evidence | Disability present; multiple doctors indicated need for permanent disability | All examiners anticipated potential improvement; no proof of permanent disability | Yes; denial supported by substantial evidence and lack of permanent certification |
| Use of Rule 38.36 to disregard other disability determinations | Awards from others should be persuasive evidence of disability | Rule allows independent determination; different criteria apply | Properly disregarded under Rule 38.36; different disability standards apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347 (1975) (due process concerns when decision-maker is aligned with state in a dispute)
- In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich, 482 Mich 90 (2008) (agency interpretation awaited respectful consideration but not controlling on courts)
- Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, 243 Mich App 487 (2000) (AG's unique status requires accommodation of rules for government attorneys)
- People v Waterstone, 486 Mich 942 (2010) (accommodation of unique status of government attorneys to avoid prejudice)
- VanZandt v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 266 Mich App 579 (2005) (board cannot retire absent medical advisor certification of total disability)
- Dignan v Mich Pub Sch Employees Retirement Bd, 253 Mich App 571 (2002) (standard of review—substantial evidence deferential to agency findings)
- Boyd v Civil Serv Comm, 220 Mich App 226 (1996) (defining substantial evidence standard and review)