| Date: | 10/14/2019 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Division of Administrative Law Appeals |
| Docket Number: | CR-15-551 |
PERAC’s refusal to approve a grant of accidental disability retirement to an oil boiler repairman disabled by emphysema and COPD, whose application had been approved by the Brockton Retirement Board, is affirmed. Despite some confusion as to whether the medical panel had determined that his disability was job-related, the panelists reports, properly understood, show that the panel did not believe that the applicant’s lung problems were caused by job-related exposures. The applicant failed to show that the panel lacked sufficient facts, used an erroneous standard, or was plainly wrong.
Rodney Simmons, a former oil burner repairman for the City of Brockton, appeals timely from the Brockton Retirement Board’s failure to approve his application for accidental disability retirement. Although the Retirement Board had at first approved his application, it informed Mr. Simmons that it was unable to proceed as it wished. That was because the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), which reviews grants of accidental disability retirement benefits, had informed that Board that its decision was unsupported because the medical panel that had examined Mr. Simmons did not find that his disabling lung conditions were job-related.
I held a hearing on December 13, 2018, which I recorded digitally. I admitted fourteen exhibits (Exs. A-N) into evidence and marked Mr. Simmons’s prehearing memorandum as Pleading A and the PERAC’s prehearing memorandum as Pleading B. I now admit Mr. Simmons’s appeal as a fifteenth exhibit (Ex. O). Mr. Simmons was the only witness. The Retirement Board chose not to contest Mr. Simmons’s appeal and did not appear at the hearing. Both parties who appeared made oral closing arguments at the conclusion of the hearing.
Based on the evidence, the testimony, and exhibits presented at the hearing and reasonable inferences from them, I make the following findings of fact:
1. Rodney Simmons was born in 1951, graduated from Brockton High School in 1969, and after two years of service in the U.S. Army, began oil burner work. From 1971 to 1998 he worked for two companies and for a few years on his own, mostly working on residential boilers. Throughout these years, he smoked – for some years, a pack a day. (Simmons testimony; Ex. J.)
2. In 1998, he was hired by the City of Brockton as an oil burner repairman. He recalls no major health problems at the time. He passed a pre-employment physical that included a chest x-ray. (Simmons testimony; Ex. J.)
3. An oil burner repairman for the City of Brockton:
Installs, repairs, and maintains oil burners. Checks fuel and draft and makes necessary adjustments to damper. Inspects and maintains controls, draft inducers, smoke stacks, chimneys, and piping. Performs preventive maintenance and necessary cleaning of all component parts. Troubleshoots oil burners; repairs and replaces parts, and returns oil burner to operating condition.
(Ex. D.) The job description advises that “outdoor work may be performed in adverse weather conditions with exposure to hazards associated with chemicals and equipment.” Id
4. Mr. Simmons’s work took him to all the municipal buildings in the city, including City Hall, six fire stations, and the city’s schools. He handled ten to twelve calls per day. Some of the schools had crumbling asbestos in the areas where he worked. Many of the city’s boilers were insulated with fiberglass that he would at times have to tear apart to complete his work. Every boiler had soot in it. Some buildings also had mold, peeling paint, or dead animals in his work locations. Over the course of his career with the City, he took pictures of these conditions. He does not recall the City testing the air quality of any of its buildings; that would be done only if someone became sick. (Simmons testimony; Ex. C; Pleading A.)
5. In 2008, Mr. Simmons was hospitalized with a collapsed lung. He was also diagnosed with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), which entails two lung diseases, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. In 2010, he was hospitalized for pneumonia. His condition 1 was so serious that he was placed in an artificial coma for eleven days to treat it. He was again hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012, this time for four days. He also recalls a fourth time he was diagnosed with pneumonia (although there is no information in the records as to when that was) and that he had numerous bouts of bronchitis. (Simmons testimony; Ex. A.)
6. On January 8, 2014, Mr. Simmons responded to a call that the heat was off in the Ashfield elementary school. He found that the blower vent was off. When he turned it on, accumulated dust blew in his face and he began choking and coughing. He visited his doctor, Bruce Ring, M.D., who determined that he had “multiple exacerbations of his lung disease that are most likely related to his occupational exposure to dust mold and asbestos” and that, as a consequence, he was “unable to return to work indefinitely due to ongoing work exposures.” He did not work for the City of Brockton again. (Simmons testimony; Ex. H; Pleading A.)
7. Mr. Simmons applied for workers compensation benefits. An impartial evaluation of his condition was performed on October 8, 2014 by Thomas Morris, M.D., a pulmonary specialist. Dr. Morris diagnosed him with COPD and noted that “his chest CT scan shows some calcification of the pleura documenting asbestos related pleural disease.” On the possible roles of smoking and workplace exposures in causing Mr. Simmons’s COPD, Dr. Morris opined:
This individual’s COPD has two causes one includes 27-pack-year history of cigarette smoking. The other is his more that 40 years of exposure to hydrocarbon fumes, soot, dust, asbestos, and mold in the course of his multiple jobs as an oil burner and boiler repairman. The last 15 years of this occupation were during his employment with the City of Brockton, Massachusetts. Either one of these could have caused his condition, but his occupational exposure certainly had a major role in aggravating and accelerating it. Since his removal from this environment his symptoms have improved lending credence to the aggravation component
8. On March 11, 2014, Mr. Simmons applied for accidental disability retirement. He listed his disabling medical conditions as lung disease, COPD, hypoxemia [low oxygen in the blood], and emphysema. He described his disability as being related to a job hazard, which involved “ongoing continued and repeated exposure to hazardous asbestos particles since I started my employment with the City of Brockton.” He also stated that he had been exposed to “various hazards including dust, mold asbestos, animal remains, soot and various chemicals.” (Ex. J.)
9. Dr. Ring filed a physician’s statement in support of the application. He diagnosed Mr. Simmons with emphysema, COPD, and sleep apnea, and opined that his emphysema was likely to get worse. In response to a question that asked whether “it is more likely that the disability was caused by the job-related personal injury or hazard undergone, or the non-work related even or circumstance or condition,” he stated that he was “unable to determine.” (Ex. N.)
10. Mr. Simmons was examined by a medical panel made up of two pulmonologists, David J. Kanarek, M.D., and Barry Levine, M.D., and a doctor who specializes in occupational medicine, Steven G. McCloy, M.D. Each doctor examined Mr. Simmons separately and checked “yes” next to the boxes on the report form to that asked whether Mr. Simmons was physically incapable of performing his job, whether the incapacity was likely to be permanent, and whether the incapacity was “such as might be the natural and proximate result of the personal injury sustained or hazard undergone on account of which retirement is claimed.” (Ex. A.)
11. Dr. Kanarek evaluated Mr. Simmons on April 25, 2014. He noted that Mr. Simmons’s job regularly exposed him to asbestos, mold, dust and dead animals, and that Mr. Simmons had quit smoking in 2005 after having accumulated “35 pack-years of smoking,” i.e., he had smoked the equivalent of one pack per day of cigarettes for 35 years. He observed that Mr. Simmons’s “[p]ulmonary function studies showed a severe obstructive defect,” but that multiple CT scans “have not shown the presence of asbestosis.” He concluded that:
Mr. Simmons has severe obstructive lung disease characterized by his physical examination showing decreased breath sound intensity, his pulmonary function studies showing severe obstructive lung disease, and the description on his CT scans which show moderate to severe bullous lung disease. His symptoms of shortness of breath when carrying a toolbox upstairs and his limitation to one flight of stairs is fully compatible with these objective findings. He is disabled from his current occupation. This will be permanent.
The disability is likely primarily related to his cigarette smoking; however there is a strong possibility of re-injury if he continues to be exposed to his circumstances at work which would include asbestos and dust as already happened.
(Ex. A.)
12. Dr. Levine saw Mr. Simmons four days later. He diagnosed Mr. Simmons with severe emphysema. He reported that Mr. Simmons had stopped smoking twenty years ago and that he had been exposed on the job to asbestos, dust, mold and flaking paint. In his opinion, Mr. Simmons’s:
previous history of smoking would primarily account for [his] disability, not his job environment. However, while I do not feel that he would necessarily be at risk to other employees with his disability, he certainly would be at risk to himself by being exposed to these various inhaled toxins at work. Certainly if he returns to work he would be at risk for reinjury/exacerbation of his chronic obstructive lung disease which would be putting himself at risk and possible serious harm. Although again, his work environment is not the cause of his disability, that would be his history of smoking, it would exacerbate/aggravate his condition to the point where he would be at risk. Therefore, by application of the Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Conditions Standard, causation is established.
(Ex. A.)
13. Dr. McCloy evaluated Mr. Simmons on May 27, 2014. He stated that Mr. Simmons brought photographs with him to document his workplace exposures and estimated that he had stopped smoking twenty years earlier. He diagnosed Mr. Simmons with pulmonary emphysema and COPD. As for what caused these disabling conditions, he opined that:
While it is improbable that his underlying emphysema was directly caused by his work, he has had significant exposures over the course of many years. He has been exposed to a number of hazardous situations including mold, asbestos, peeling paint, heavy exposure to dust - all of which are likely to compound and aggravate his underlying conditions.
(Ex. A.)
14. The Brockton Retirement Board held hearings on Mr. Simmons’s application on March 31, June 25 and July 28, 2014, with a followup hearing on March 30, 2015. The Board was initially concerned about conflicting reports as to when (if ever) Mr. Simmons had stopped smoking. It made the following findings:
The Board questioned SIMMONS extensively with regard to his smoking history and he was adamant that he had not smoked since 1998. During a review of the records, there was significant conflicting evidence with regard to SIMMONS’ smoking history. A report dated December 17, 2008 from Good Samaritan Hospital notes that the patient stated he quit smoking 17 years ago. Another report dated January 7, 1989 from Dr. Ring states that the patient says he quit smoking in 2005, however, he continues to experience heavy second hand smoke exposure when he visits a social club in Brockton. Another report dated January 41 [sic], 2010 at Good Samaritan Hospital where the admitting physician notes that after the patient left the examining room, his son reported that his father continued to smoke as of that date.
(Ex. K.) As a consequence, the Board sought supplemental reports from the panel members to see if the conflicting reports of Mr. Simmons’s smoking history affected their opinions. Id
15. Dr. Kanarek responded that the additional information did not change his opinion on causation. He stated:
Mr. Simmons’ pulmonary issues are related to his cigarette smoking. He was also exposed to other issues including asbestos and mold. However, the physical examination, history of cigarette smoking, pulmonary function studies, and the CT reports all supports a diagnosis of cigarette smoke-induced disease. The issue raised is whether his smoking history is correct.
It is difficult to know the truth of his smoking history, or the extent of his actual exposure. In any case, even when one quits, the inflammatory process may proceed and the lungs may continue to deteriorate faster than nonsmokers, although perhaps slower that people who continue to smoke. If he had been smoking longer than he informed me, then the damage would be increased and would probably continue for longer since the effect of smoking is a cumulative effect. Hence, although he told me that he quit in 2005, there is some evidence that he was still smoking, or at least exposed to smoke in 2010.
Again, the damage to his lung has been caused by cigarette smoking. If he continues to smoke, or if he smoked longer that he told me, then the progression of his disease would continue for a longer period. My opinion, therefore, is that irrespective the damage to his lung is from smoking. The longer he smoked, the more likely he is to have increased and increasing damage with his lungs deteriorating and deteriorating faster than those who had been nonsmokers.
In summary, since, as I stated in my initial report, there is a strong possibility of re-injury or further damage if he were exposed again to his circumstance at work, including mold, asbestos and other forms of dust, this would represent an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, namely his emphysema. Therefore, to the issue of causation, this would be established by application of the Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Condition Standard.
(Ex. B.)
16. Dr. Levine similarly responded that his opinion was unchanged. He stated:
I evaluated Rodney Simmons on 4/29/14 and rendered my opinion that he was permanently disabled primarily as a results of his previous history of cigarette smoking. It was further my opinion that if he were to return to work he would be at risk for reinjury or exacerbation of his lung disease due to exposure to various toxins and dust. It was therefore my opinion [that] causation was established by application of the Aggravation of Pre-Existing Condition Standard
. . . .
I have reviewed the additional material concerning Mr. Simmons and I maintain my cause of his severe COPD as related to cigarette smoke. The smoking history, whether it terminated in 1998 or later, is irrelevant. Patients can develop severe emphysema as long as they smoked more that twenty-pack years, which obviously he had, and if he were to return to work he would be at significant risk of re-injury based on the nature of his work exposures.
(Ex. B.)
17. Dr. McCloy, alone among the panelists, changed his opinion on causation. He stated:
I based my initial opinion on a presumption of the accuracy of Mr. Simmons statements regarding his smoking history. It appears that his smoking history is broader that he told me. He told me specifically that he had stopped smoking approximately 20 years earlier or around 1994. It is evident that the medical record that was not true. It is also evident in the reviewed medical record that Mr. Simmons had a 30 pack-year smoking history prior to his discontinuance of cigarettes. Even with discontinuance, he continued to smoke small numbers of cigarettes. He continued also to have exposure to secondhand smoke in a job that he held at a capital Men’s Club.
While he gave a history of work exposure to other pulmonary irritants, it is medically much more likely that his 30+ years of exposure to cigarette smoke on a daily basis was a much more compelling reason to develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than was his occasional and random exposure to other substances in the workplace.
The appropriate answer to question #3 [on causation] should be no and not yes.
(Ex. B.)
18. The Retirement Board reviewed the panelists supplemental reports and concluded that a majority of the panel continued to believe that Mr. Simmons’s lung problems were caused by exposures during his employment. The Board reached the same conclusion and voted to grant Mr. Simmons accidental disability retirement. (Ex. K.)
19. When PERAC reviewed this approval, it reached the opposite conclusion about the meaning of the medical panelists’ reports. It thought that each panelists believed Mr. Simmons’s disability was caused by cigarette smoking, not workplace exposures. It also noted that Mr. Simmons’s treating physician, Dr. Ring, had stated that he was unable to determine whether Mr. Simmons’s disability was work-related and that Mr. Simmons had not presented any air quality test results to verify that he had been exposed to environmental hazards. PERAC therefore, on June 9, 2015, remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to “gather proof including environmental tests that Mr. Simmons was exposed to respiratory hazards in the course of his career. If any are discovered, the Board may petition PERAC for a new medical panel, who can consider this other evidence together with Mr. Simmons’s smoking history.” (Ex. L.)
20. The Board asked PERAC to reconsider. In an August 4, 2015 letter, it declined to change its mind. (Ex. O.)
21. On September 22, 2015, the Board sent a letter to Mr. Simmons explaining that it could go no further. It stated:
Many of the Board members, due to their personal experiences with the city buildings, are aware of the conditions you described and relied on that information in making their decision. Notwithstanding all of the work the Retirement Board put into your application and the process in evaluating it, PERAC has refused to approve the action of the Board. The Board believes they have complied with the provision of M.G.L. c. 32 and the associated Regulations and that PERAC has exceeded its authority under c. 32 §21(1)(d) 2. Without PERAC approval, the Board is without the power to pay the benefit.
(Ex. O.)
22. Mr. Simmons timely appealed. (Ex. O.).
The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission’s refusal to approve the Brockton Retirement Board’s approval of Rodney Simmons’s application for accidental disability retirement is affirmed. PERAC correctly recognized that the medical panel reports showed that the panelists had concluded that Mr. Simmons disabling lung conditions were caused by smoking rather than by work-related exposures. Mr. Simmons failed to show that the panel lacked pertinent facts, employed an erroneous standard, or was plainly wrong, and thus he has not shown that he is entitled to a new panel.
In order to receive accidental disability retirement benefits, an applicant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, including an affirmative medical panel certificate, that he is totally and permanently incapacitated from performing the essential duties of his position as a result of an injury sustained or hazard undergone while in the performance of his duties. M.G.L. c. 32, § 7. Mr. Simmons asserts that he was exposed to hazards during the course of his employment with the City of Brockton, and that, as a consequence of repeated exposures at work to asbestos, dust, mold, soot, and fiberglass, he developed disabling lung conditions.
As part of his effort to prove entitlement to accidental disability retirement, Mr. Simmons had to submit to a medical evaluation by a three-physician regional medical panel. M.G.L. c. 32, §§ 6(3)(a) and 7(1). The medical panel’s function is to “determine medical questions which are beyond the common knowledge and experience of the local board (or Appeal Board).” Malden Retirement Board v. CRAB, 1 Mass. App. 420, 423, 298 N.E.2d 902, 904 (1973). The panel must certify its medical opinion regarding three statutory inquiries: (1) whether the applicant is “unable to perform the essential duties of his job,” (2) whether “such inability is likely to be permanent,” and (3) whether the disability is “by reason of a personal injury sustained or hazard undergone as a result of, and while in the performance of, his duties.” See M.G.L. c. 32, § 7(1).
It makes a great deal of difference whether a majority of the panel answers the questions in the affirmative or the negative. Accidental disability retirement cannot be granted without an affirmative panel. An affirmative panel is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to the granting of accidental disability retirement because the final determination on causation is for the retirement board “based on the facts found and all the underlying evidence, including both the medical and non-medical facts.” Blanchette v. Contributory Retirement App. Bd., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 483, 481 N.E.2d 216, 219 (1985). Should a retirement board deny an application despite an affirmative panel, a member on appeal may attempt to demonstrate that the board erred and that he should be granted accidental disability retirement. On the other hand, if the panel answered “no” to any of the three questions, the retirement board must deny the application. See Quincy Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 340 Mass. 56, 60, 162 N.E.2d 802, 805 (1959). On appeal, an applicant may overcome a panel’s “no” response only by proving that the panel either lacked pertinent facts, employed an erroneous standard, or was plainly wrong. See Kelley v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 341 Mass. 611, 617, 171 N.E.2d 277, 281 (1961) and Malden Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 1 Mass. App. Ct. 420, 424, 298 N.E.2d 902, 905 (1973). If the member proves that the panel erred, the matter will be remanded for the appointment of a new panel.
Mr. Simmons maintains that the panel that evaluated him was positive, and that he is entitled to accidental disability retirement because he has demonstrated sufficiently that his disability was caused by workplace exposures while employed by Brockton. PERAC contends that the panel was in fact negative, that it did not err, and therefore Mr. Simmons has not demonstrated that a new panel should be appointed.
There is no question that the three panelists all thought Mr. Simmons was disabled and that his disability was permanent. There is also no question that each panelist, in his initial report, checked the box indicating that Mr. Simmons’s disability might be caused by workplace hazards. There is also no doubt that only Dr. McCloy changed his answer to “no” on causation when he submitted a supplemental report.
That is not the end of the story, however, for as useful as the checked boxes can be in presenting a summary of a medical panelist’s opinion, what is most important is the report prepared by the panelist explaining that opinion. The explanations offered by Drs. Kanarek and Levine show that each of them thought that cigarette smoking was the cause of Mr. Simmons’s disabling lung conditions. Nonetheless, Dr. Kanarek did not initially answer “no” on causation because he thought “there is a strong possibility of re-injury if [Mr. Simmons] continues to be exposed to his circumstances at work which would include asbestos and dust as already happened.” (Finding 11.) In his supplemental report, Dr. Kanarek confirmed that he thought “Mr. Simmons’ pulmonary issues are related to his cigarette smoking,” but again thought causation was shown because:
there is a strong possibility of re-injury or further damage if he were exposed again to his circumstance at work, including mold, asbestos and other forms of dust, this would represent an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, namely his emphysema. Therefore, to the issue of causation, this would be established by application of the Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Condition Standard.
(Finding 15.) Similarly, Dr. Levine thought that Mr. Simmons’s “previous history of smoking would primarily account for [his] disability, not his job environment,” but that “if he returns to work he would be at risk for reinjury/exacerbation of his chronic obstructive lung disease which would be putting himself at risk and possible serious harm,” and therefore “the Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Conditions Standard, causation is established.” (Finding 12.) He reiterated this position in his supplemental report stating that if Mr. Simmons “were to return to work he would be at risk for re-injury or exacerbation of his lung disease due to exposure to various toxins and dust,” and therefore “causation was established by application of the Aggravation of PreExisting Condition Standard.” (Finding 16.)
It is true that if a public employee’s health problem unrelated to work is aggravated by a workplace injury or hazard to the point of permanent disability, then eligibility for accidental disability retirement can be established. See Baruffaldi v. Contributory Retirement App. Bd., 337 Mass. 495, 501, 150 N.E.2d, 269, 272 (1958). That means, in Mr. Simmons’s case, the panelists could have properly answered “yes” on the causation question if they thought the medical evidence showed that his cigarette-induced lung problems had been made so much worse by job exposures as a Brockton employee to asbestos, soot, mold, and fiberglass that he could no longer perform his job duties. But that is not what Drs. Kanarek and Levine said. They each thought that cigarette smoking had made him disabled and that he could no longer work as an oil burner repairman as a consequence. They also expressed the opinion that if he tried to resume such work, then the exposures of which he complained would worsen his health. But that is not relevant to proof of causation. If a disabled member stops working, causation is established only if the source of the disability is work-related. Since both Drs. Kanarek and Levine thought the source of Mr. Simmons’s disability was cigarette smoking, their reports can most properly be understood as having answered “no” on causation.
Because each of the panelists can thus be said to have answered no on causation, Mr. Simmons had to show on appeal that they lacked pertinent facts, used an erroneous standard, or were plainly wrong. That he did not do. The panelists were each aware that Mr. Simmons was claiming that workplace exposures were the reason he became disabled. While PERAC maintains that he did not have enough proof of such exposure because he lacked air quality reports, what is important here is that the panel members knew what Mr. Simmons was claiming, were informed by him of what exposures he experienced, and evaluated the medical evidence to attempt to determine whether his existing lung problems were caused by such exposures or by smoking. The reports they filed and the report of Dr. Morris suggest that the medical information the doctors had at their disposal was sufficient to determine whether cigarette smoking or on the job exposures caused Mr. Simmons’s lung problems 3. Dr. Kanarek noted that CT scans did not show that Mr. Simmons had asbestosis (Finding 11), while Dr. Morris thought the CT scans showed “asbestos related pleural disease” (Finding 7). Moreover, despite some uncertainty as to whether or when Mr. Simmons had stopped smoking, the panelists had enough information about his smoking history to make a determination. As Dr. Levine observed, “[p]atients can develop severe emphysema as long as they smoked more than twenty-pack years,” which by all accounts Mr. Simmons had done. (Finding 16.) Even if he stopped smoking in 1998, his long term health would still likely have been impacted by his smoking history because, as Dr. Kanarek noted, “the inflammatory process may proceed and the lungs may continue to deteriorate faster than nonsmokers.” (Finding 15.) Thus, there is no evidence that the panel lacked pertinent facts or was plainly wrong. While Drs. Kanarek and Levine applied the wrong legal standard to their conclusions, what each wrote was clear enough to understand what their conclusions on causation should properly have been.
Nonetheless, Mr. Simmons argues that the opinions of Drs Kanarek and Levine should be understood as mirroring the opinion of Dr. Morris that Mr. Simmons’s job exposures aggravated his lung problems, and thus the panel should be considered a positive panel. At best, the reports of these two doctors show that they were aware that the types of substances to which Mr. Simmons reported exposure could cause lung damage, as they each opined that if he continued to be exposed to those substances his lung problems would worsen. Each doctor, in his initial report, described cigarette smoking as the primary cause of Mr. Simmons’s lung problems, thereby suggesting there were other possible causes as well. But neither doctor, in his initial report, described Mr. Simmons’s workplace exposures as a cause of his existing disability, but rather as the possible cause of further harm if he were to return to work. Each doctor then filed a supplemental report. Neither Dr. Kanarek nor Dr. Levine stated in their second report that workplace exposures were a cause of Mr. Simmons’s disability. Dr. Kanarek very directly declared that “the damage to [Mr. Simmons’s] lung has been caused by cigarette smoking” (Finding 15) and Dr. Levine said the die was cast for Mr. Simmons to suffer lung damage when he had smoked for twenty pack-years (Finding 16). Accordingly, I am not persuaded that these medical panelists’ opinions should be regarded as affirmative on causation.
Accordingly, because the medical panel’s report, properly understood, was negative on causation, and because Mr. Simmons has failed to show that the panel lacked pertinent information, applied the wrong standard or was plainly wrong, PERAC’s refusal to approve a grant of accidental disability retirement to Rodney Simmons made by the Brockton Retirement Board, is affirmed. SO ORDERED.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
James P. Rooney
First Administrative Magistrate
Dated: October 4, 2019
