From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graft v. St. Emp. Ret. System Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 16, 1983
457 A.2d 596 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)

Opinion

March 16, 1983.

State Employes' Retirement Board — Disability annuity — State Employees' Retirement Code, 71 Pa. C. S. § 5308 — Credibility.

1. Questions of credibility are for the State Employes' Retirement Board in determining whether a state employe suffering a heart attack is entitled to a disability annuity under provisions of the State Employees' Retirement Code, 71 Pa. C. S. § 5308, and a denial of the annuity is not improper when evidence indicates that his job involves only sedentary duties within his capabilities. [607-8]

Submitted on briefs November 17, 1982, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges MacPHAIL and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal No. 844 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the State Employes' Retirement Board in case of In Re: Leroy L. Graff, SS 183-20-9462, Disability Claimant.

Application for disability annuity with the State Employes' Retirement Board. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Edward C. Harkin, petitioner.

Marsha V. Mills, Assistant Chief Counsel, for respondent.


The State Employes' Retirement Board (Board) denied a disability annuity to Leroy Graff. He appeals. We affirm.

Graff, a Department of Transportation (Department) employee, suffered a myocardial infarction while digging culverts. Prior to his illness, he had been employed as a Highway Foreman II. Following the attack, Graff underwent several operations to successfully install a pacemaker. His physician advised him that he would be unable to return to his previous assignment because of the physical exertion required. Graff testified that his job included, together with its managerial functions, heavy work when regular crew members were absent. Not withstanding the absence of specified physical activity in the published job description, the Board, in examining the evidence, relief on this sedentary job description and gave no credence to Graff's testimonial description of his actual working conditions.

Graff testified that he was told by his supervisor that:

You guys are working foremen. If you're short a shovel man, pick up a shovel. If you're short a pick man, pick up a pick. . . . If you have to pick, pick; if you have to shovel, shovel; if you have to swing a sledge hammer, swing it; if you have to run a jack hammer, run it. . . .

N.T. p. 31. Graff also testified that his job included overtime snow removal, road paving and sign repair.

The stipulated job description delineated Graff's responsibilities:

Directs a crew engaged in cleaning and opening drain pipes; participates in developing anticipated work schedules; requisitions any material or hand tools required and orders the dispatch of equipment required to accomplish assigned responsibility; assigns areas for snow removal operation.

Section 5308(c) of the State Employees' Retirement Code provides that, if an employee "prior to attainment of superannuation age . . . becomes mentally or physically incapable of continuing to perform the duties for which he is employed," he shall receive a disability annuity. Section 5905(c) further provides that, in making this determination, the Board must consider relevant precedent decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.

Resolutions of credibility are within the province of the Hearing Examiner and such resolution does not constitute capricious disregard of competent evidence. Girovsky v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 70 Pa. Commw. 536, 453 A.2d 723 (1982).

The Board adopted the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that:

2. Claimant should not be granted a disability benefit since he should be able to perform the sedentary duties contained in his job description.

In concluding that Graff was not entitled to a disability annuity, the Board provided him with two options: (1) either he could return to work or (2) withdraw his accumulated contributions to the pension plan and separate. In our opinion, the Board did not capriciously disregard competent evidence in denying this annuity; however, if Graff should exercise his option to return to work, the Department must limit his duties to those in the published job description.

Affirmed.

ORDER

The order of the State Employees' Retirement Board dated March 18, 1981, is affirmed.


Summaries of

Graft v. St. Emp. Ret. System Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 16, 1983
457 A.2d 596 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)
Case details for

Graft v. St. Emp. Ret. System Bd.

Case Details

Full title:Leroy L. Graff, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 16, 1983

Citations

457 A.2d 596 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1983)
457 A.2d 596

Citing Cases

Parris v. State Employees' Retirement Bd.

Moreover, the June 2003 job description that was submitted into evidence by SERS describing Claimant's duties…

Albright v. State Emp. Ret. Sys

Neither the Code nor its accompanying regulations confer any factfinding function to the hearing examiner.…