Haynes v. Disability Review Bd. of Prince George's Cnty. Corr. Officers' Pension Plan

AEISHA HAYNES v. DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS' PENSION PLAN

No. 822

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

July 22, 2020

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CAL18-23091

UNREPORTED

Beachley, Gould, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Beachley, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

On September 28, 2015, appellant Aeisha Haynes witnessed a violent incident while working as a correctional officer in the Prince George's County Department of Corrections. In late 2016, Ms. Haynes filed a Statement of Disability claiming that she could no longer work at her place of employment and requesting retirement disability benefits pursuant to the Prince George's County Correctional Officers' Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan"). Following a formal hearing and the Hearing Examiner's favorable recommendation to Ms. Haynes, the Disability Review Board of Prince George's County Correctional Officers' Pension Plan ("DRB") issued its final determination concluding that Ms. Haynes was not disabled as defined by the Pension Plan.

Ms. Haynes filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County requesting that the court reverse the DRB's decision and grant her a service-connected disability. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued an order affirming the decision of the DRB. Ms. Haynes timely appealed to this Court and presents two issues for our review, which we have consolidated into one:

Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DRB's decision to deny Ms. Haynes's request for a service-connected disability.¹

Prior to oral argument, this Court issued an Order for Supplemental Briefing wherein we instructed the parties to brief whether we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal in light of our recent decision in Gray v. Fenton, 245 Md. App. 207 (2020). Both parties timely complied, and we commend them for their supplemental briefs.

We conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider Ms. Haynes's appeal, and hold that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the DRB's decision. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2015, while working at the Prince George's County Department of Corrections, Ms. Haynes witnessed an inmate violently attack the officer who had been assigned as her partner that day. For the week following the incident, Ms. Haynes continually replayed the incident in her mind; she suffered from loss of appetite and an inability to sleep, and did not return to work. When she did return to work, Ms. Haynes began to suffer from increasingly severe chest pains.

After three months, when Ms. Haynes still continued to suffer from stress, fatigue, and loss of appetite, she visited her nurse practitioner, Tamika Jones Ware. NP Ware's December 22, 2015 patient summary indicated that Ms. Haynes wished to avoid pharmacotherapy, and instead preferred to speak with a therapist. In a follow-up appointment on February 16, 2016, NP Ware indicated that Ms. Haynes had recently been "seen in the ER for chest pain/panic attack." Apparently, while at work, Ms. Haynes experienced an increased heartrate and difficulty breathing, both allegedly as a result of theSeptember 2015 incident.² At the February 16, 2016 appointment, NP Ware prescribed Xanax and other medications for Ms. Haynes's symptoms. On March 31, 2016, NP Ware saw Ms. Haynes again and noted that Ms. Haynes claimed the medications she was taking had worked at first, but seemed to be losing their efficacy. Ms. Haynes indicated that she had been working "on light duty" at work, and that this arrangement seemed to be "working out ok at the moment."

At the referral of her attorney, Ms. Haynes began seeing psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Sheehan on April 6, 2016. As Ms. Haynes continued to visit with Dr. Sheehan, he authored numerous reports wherein he diagnosed Ms. Haynes with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and major depressive disorder. The reports documented Ms. Haynes's trouble with sleeping, her gradual increase in alcohol consumption, her belief that "there was a 95 percent chance an inmate [would] have someone attack her and kill her[,] and her feelings of guilt and responsibility for her partner's injuries." Dr. Sheehan placed Ms. Haynes out of work on May 6, 2016, believing that she was unable to perform her work responsibilities.

In addition to seeing Dr. Sheehan, at the request of the Prince George's County Attorney's Office, Ms. Haynes received what the parties characterized as an "independentmedical examination" ("IME") from psychiatrist Dr. Cynthia Major Lewis.³ Dr. Lewis first evaluated Ms. Haynes on April 14, 2016, and reported many of the symptoms found in Dr. Sheehan's reports, including: Ms. Haynes's gradual increase in alcohol consumption, her trouble sleeping, her feelings of guilt related to the attack, and her shortness of breath and chest pain during the February 2016 incident. In the "Diagnostic Impression" of her report, however, Dr. Lewis diagnosed Ms. Haynes with an adjustment disorder with mixed depression and anxiety. Dr. Lewis concluded her April 14, 2016 report by suggesting that although Ms. Haynes could not resume full work duties and responsibilities at that time, Dr. Lewis believed Ms. Haynes would improve enough to return to full work responsibilities after four to six weeks of psychotherapy and continued light duty work.

Dr. Lewis evaluated Ms. Haynes for the second and final time on August 23, 2016, and authored a report dated August 28, 2016, wherein she reaffirmed her diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Notably, the August 2016 report cast doubt on Ms. Haynes's reliability in reporting her symptoms, stating, "It was difficult to determine the reliability of her reported symptoms and what other factors were contributing to her functioning and presentation." Dr. Lewis expressed concern that Ms. Haynes had been inconsistent in taking her medication, and that she was still drinking alcohol on a daily basis despite Dr. Sheehan's admonishments that she avoid alcohol. In concluding that Ms. Haynes was able to resume normal work responsibilities at theDepartment of Corrections, Dr. Lewis asserted that Ms. Haynes's "desire to not return to work is being driven by choice and not from a medical disability." Dr. Lewis also noted that Ms. Haynes's "strong desire to not return to work can be a factor in her report of worsening symptoms and lack of reported improvement."

Although still her treating physician, in September 2016 Dr. Sheehan performed his own "independent psych evaluation" in order to author a report critiquing Dr. Lewis's diagnosis and opinion. The critique claimed that Dr. Lewis had "minimize[d] the extent of the assault Mrs. Haynes witnessed." Dr. Sheehan also claimed that Dr. Lewis had "minimize[d] the extent of [Ms. Haynes's] injuries." Specifically, Dr. Sheehan suggested that Dr. Lewis seemed reluctant to make any PTSD diagnosis generally, even where the patient exhibited many of the symptoms associated with that disorder. Additionally, Dr. Sheehan claimed that Dr. Lewis's IME was inadequate because she failed to interview someone other than Ms. Haynes, which he characterized as a breach in the standard of care. Dr. Sheehan explained that in performing his own IME, he interviewed Ms. Haynes's husband on September 13, 2016, by telephone. In summary, Dr. Sheehan asserted that Dr. Lewis "failed to properly evaluate Mrs. Haynes."

In late 2016, Ms. Haynes submitted her application for service-connected disability retirement, stating that she had last worked in early May 2016, and that she did not feel safe returning to her place of employment. Section 3C of the Pension Plan governs Disability Retirement Benefits. Section 3C.1 of the Pension Plan provides, in relevant part:3C.1 Retirement at Disability Retirement Date.

(a) Definition of Disability.

A Comprehensive Participant shall be retired on a Disability Retirement Date if [she] meets all of the following conditions:

(1) The Comprehensive Participant is so disabled, mentally or physically, that [she] is unable to fill any position then available to [her] as a Covered Employee.

(2) [Her] disability is likely to be of long duration.

(3) [Her] disability has not resulted from service in the armed forces of any country for which [she] receives a military pension, was not caused or connected with chronic alcoholism or addiction to narcotics or use of drugs prohibited by law, or resulted from [her] engaging in a criminal act or an effort to bring about the injury of [herself] or any other person.

(b) Determination of Disability.

(1) All determinations of disability shall be made by the [DRB] . . . in accordance with the rules of procedure of the [DRB] as shall be adopted by the [DRB] and be in effect from time to time.

A disability determination shall commence upon written application of a Comprehensive Participant, the Retirement Administrator, or the appointing authority, filed with the Medical Advisory Board. The Medical Advisory Board shall be composed of nine (9) physicians selected by the County Executive, and there shall be one (1) position from each of the following specialists: Cardiologist, Psychiatrist, Neurosurgeon, Orthopedist, Physiatrist, Radiologist and two physicians from the specialty of general medicine. In addition, the President of the Prince George's Correctional Officers' Association or his designee, shall serve as a non-voting member of the Medical Advisory Board in cases involving Comprehensive Participants who are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Prince George's Correctional Officers'

...