From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzgerald v. St. Emp. Ret. Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 16, 1981
432 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)

Opinion

Argued May 4, 1981

July 16, 1981.

State Employees' Retirement Board — Disability — State Employees' Retirement Code, 71 Pa. C. S. § 5905 — Findings of fact — Remand.

1. The State Employees' Retirement Board in considering an application for disability benefits is required by provisions of the State Employees' Retirement Code, 71 Pa. C. S. § 5905, to make findings of fact as to whether disability exists, whether such disability is service connected and the effective date of any compensable disability, and, when such findings are not made by the Board as required, the case must be remanded to the Board. [560-1]

Argued May 4, 1981, before Judges MENCER, ROGERS and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 620 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the State Employees' Retirement Board in case of Gary L. Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Employees' Retirement Board, dated February 20, 1980.

Application with the State Employees' Retirement Board for disability benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Order vacated. Case remanded.

Warren R. Keck, III, Voorhies, Keck, Rowley and Wallace, for petitioner.

Thomas J. Mangan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with him Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.


Gary L. Fitzgerald (petitioner) has appealed from an order of the State Employees' Retirement Board (Board) which denied disability benefits. We vacate and remand.

The petitioner was employed as a State Police Trooper for over 10 years. In May of 1978, the petitioner was placed on indefinite sick leave without pay after having been advised by a physician that the stress of his job was inhibiting treatment for a duodenal ulcer. The petitioner subsequently applied for disability benefits, claiming that the stress of his employment had caused the ulcer which ultimately resulted in the surgical removal of 75 percent of his stomach. In addition, the petitioner's physician indicated that, if the petitioner returned to work, then he would probably suffer a relapse.

Section 5905(c) of the State Employees' Retirement Code (Code), 71 Pa. C. S. § 5905(c), provides, in pertinent part:

(c) In every case where the board has received an application for a disability annuity based upon physical or mental incapacity for the performance of the job for which the member is employed, taking into account relevant decisions by The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Board, the board shall:

(1) through the chief medical examiner, have the applicant examined and on the basis of said examination, and the subsequent recommendation by the chief medical examiner regarding the applicant's medical qualification for a disability annuity along with such other recommendations which he may make with respect to the permanency of disability or the need for subsequent reexaminations, make a finding of disability and whether or not the disability is service connected or nondisability and in the case of disability establish an effective date of disability and the terms and conditions regarding subsequent reexaminations. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The petitioner's application was considered by a hearing examiner for the Board, who found that the petitioner was physically incapable of performing his job and that his physical condition arose from his employment. The hearing examiner recommended that the application for benefits should be granted. Without taking additional testimony and without making findings of fact or conclusions of law or adopting the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner, the Board stated that "[t]he Board considered this recommendation and reviewed all the medical evidence submitted in this case. As a result, the Board disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and unanimously voted to deny the disability benefit."

This Court has consistently held that it will not review an administrative order which does not contain the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. See, e.g., Tyler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commw. 534, 395 A.2d 1045 (1979). Our Supreme Court stated, in Page's Department Store v. Velardi, 464 Pa. 276, 287, 346 A.2d 556, 561 (1975), as follows:

When the fact finder in an administrative proceeding is required to set forth his findings in an adjudication, that adjudication must include all findings necessary to resolve the issues raised by the evidence and which are relevant to to a decision. An appellate court or other reviewing body should not infer from the absence of a finding on a given point that the question was resolved in favor of the party who prevailed below, for the point may have been overlooked or the law misunderstood at the trial or hearing level. In cases such as the one before us in which essential findings of fact were not made the case must be remanded so that the findings may be supplied.

For this reason, we must remand this case to the Board, so that the requisite findings and conclusions may be made.

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 1981, the decision of the State Employees' Retirement Board, dated February 21, 1980, which denied disability benefits to Gary L. Fitzgerald, is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded for further action consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Fitzgerald v. St. Emp. Ret. Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 16, 1981
432 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)
Case details for

Fitzgerald v. St. Emp. Ret. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:Gary L. Fitzgerald, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 16, 1981

Citations

432 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1981)
432 A.2d 285

Citing Cases

Niper v. St. Emp. Ret. System

The Board did not take additional testimony or make findings of fact and conclusions of law; it instead…