proceed this is a disability retirement case the underlying question the central question is whether the county retirement commission complied with  every requirement under the ordinance the ordinance required three things and she met each of them she had worked for over ten years she had applied for and she been determined to be totally and completely disabled by the social security administration and she had been certified as disabled and she should be retired by the medical director chosen in appointed by the retirement commission of some of these doctors claim that she could still work not exactly but close they had claimed that she did not have physical conditions which the medical director who certified her disability certified that she was mentally disabled and under the plan this is how mood correct correct is an internist ri having worked there's no hope here we mean we see a lot of these disability cases but usually they're either under rissa or they're under social security and we know the sort of standard do you see this as a straight contract case is it in administrative law substantial evidence case and you might also say you know everything you've said so far sounds like this is a michigan case when we realized that all of the evidence showed she was disabled there was no way to continue pursuing the disability discrimination case so we dropped our portion of the case but the case continued disability retirement takes it's still it's substantial evidence of that criteria yeah i said this is an administrative review of an michigan law there are two standards of review under michigan law one standard of review is the substantial evidence review of the factual findings made by the retirement commission but the second is whether the decision is contrary to law in the contrary to law decision under michigan law is reviewed by the a given set of facts applied to an ordinance is reviewed no vote by the court the underlying facts are reviewed for substantial evidence but when there is a set of given facts the retirement commission failed to apply it rules in the word announce that going reviewing the the different conclusions shooty the ph d medical director who was for a light upon by a commission in reviewing the certification of towns disability by medical director applied in their rules were apply in the key rule to this the rule which needs to be reviewed is the job specific standard of disability the retirement commission adopted a rule which says incapacity for duty in the employ of his or her last employer show means employment in the same or similar position the a member at the time of the disability that is the rule which must be followed in the underlying facts which were found by all of the doctors regarding town's disability where the same both the doctor who certify towns disability and the doc medical director who did not certify her disability made the same filing day that she was not able to perform her own  but that there were she would be able to say she was born your brief it fifteen which has that heading then has the quote well it may have a significant impact on her ability and it may be difficult to return  previous employment well you know there are a lot of things in life that are difficult that are not impossible and on the factual side you've got doctors with neurological credentials who say she doesn't have these neurological and uro's psychiatric conditions and you've got an internist who says that she does isn't the cat and the commission justified in making a choice between those has agreed that she didn't have a physical condition but found that the reports from er doctors the depression and the mental issues were what made her disabled heeds his credentials aren't even as good as the other folks in terms of dealing with mental conditions we don't know that we know what his degrees were but they had never asked him what his additional background and training watched something they his done and it was if you were the lawyer at the time but if you wanted to fight on that basis you know you could have put in whatever additional credential is he had we understood it had been because the motions which were made brought forward the tree had not had a purely mental examination and at the hearing  commission meeting where a vote was taken to hire dr removed there was discussion representing that all of her condition including the mental condition would be reviewed that this would objected that his report well at that point we assume that it was going to be approved because we had a medical directors report the medical director came in saying she was disabled and salo at that point we went to the to the meeting expect to get to be approved walked out learning it had not been approved and that was the the end of the process this was a rehearing at this point in there was no way to further pursue this other than by coming to court it's important to understand also that there was an additional problem with surety these appointments medical director he is not a physician in the ordinance specifically protects the members by assuring them that the review of their medical condition would be done by a physician well that this organization use position dr which organization that you are saying that they were looking for a medical director and th there's some sort of a group of doctors that provides medical tests for the commission this is a company which makes referrals by doctors so that's the medical director that's what they use and you know the training and off he has no as far as we know he has no he's not an m d he has no certification as a nurse or anything else a museum issue a user's doctor that somebody is physicians consultants clarence dixon would be directed to make sure that the examination was conducted by an m d you dorothy had boycie and trop had you not i mean you didn't like those either but they're definitely d s and shooty is a neuro psychologist not an m d but he is qualified in various mental conditions correct but the problem with trot in with boy he is they looked at the physical condition of a facia in both of them certify to the commission that they were unqualified to review her mental could dish and since mental condition became the basis on which she was claiming disability their opinions did not cover the mental can do and there is their determination that she did not have a phase show is that come out of the blue on her form she would say i asked what her disability was there is no requirement to enter the plan under the ordinance to have a physical  diagnosis as to the cause of the disability it's only important to determine whether the condition is disabling or not can disabling to have her limited by an unprofessional opinion on her part is to want to legally unprofessional here if i'm wrong here the you know you have the retirement commission's medical director that decides where things go they referred it to dr shooty for a neuro psychological examination to assess cognitive and emotional functioning in relation to a long term disability claim the fact that he's not an m d if he is a p michigan law they aren't given the option to interpret the act they have once it turned out shooty wasn't a physicians at the end of the case absolutely not the ordinance your honor for the record your honor michael fan over back appearing on behalf of the genesee county employees retirement commission may please the court  with regards to dr shu to examination i understand that dr shooty was requested to do an examination on appeal of the original denial of disability so there's some some procedural steps here that pla medical director the ordinance is very clear and this really applies directly to the doctor shooty issue is the examinations are made by her under the direction of the board's medical director and so the first two examinations are done by neurologists based upon plaintiff's application indicating her disability to be of probably or excuse me that's dr boycie yes dr boykin dr truck dr boyd q c objects to the examination indicates that he was aggressive in all kinds of personnel problems during the examination she comes to the board based upon that report the board had the ability to deny the disability the border really was seeking to make sure learned here it's you know maybe you need to stop it early in the process because all's we have now is it administrative record that went on and on and on we have a determination and an appeal that determination in a rehearing and the original determination was the denial the appeal that the board considered the appeal and in considering that appeal the concern then was the neuro psychological condition and that's why she went to see dr shooting a doctor should ease opinion is very very i think extensive dr who mood was called in because their requests plaintiff's request for rehearing they claim she had now hugh syndrome a new diagnosis please re examine her here's new medical records and the medical records were continuously supplemented here's now our  them well i will tell you it was very difficult for the board to go through that process i mean while while plaintiff indicates you know that you do not have to say what your disability is the it is plaintiff's responsibility to prove a disability the board doesn't have to go searching for disability you have to let them know what you feel your claim disability is it's not their job to do a diagnosis to do research we center for these examinations and they constantly change perhaps at that point she should have submitted new applications but in the end she changed it a third time and so at that point time they sent her specifically to dr who mood very clearly for the hugh center and he didn't find that or any or can disorder but did come back and say well you know but i do feel she's got some generalized anxiety she seems to be very upset you know intense and we i feel that you should give her disability based upon that this was on the rehearing of the appeal of the originals and on the board said wait a minute we've had her seen by a neuro psychologist for that we sent this for an examination solely on the issue of the hue syndrome that's is there of expertise and we are not going to find a disability looking at the entire record and quite frankly at the point in which they were in the disability process and they denied the disability claim to says that they did not follow the ordinance that somehow they violated their medical director they'd indicates that the applicant is totally and permanently disabled from further there performance of duty in her last employer and that does not exist in the record now one plaintiff argues that dr who mood on the original deny and then the rehearing of the denial of the appeal gives a set certification but when you look at the record as a whole that isn't the certification of that that's a that was outside of the scope of what they had granted the re hearing for the rehearing was specifically with regards to the hue syndrome was outside the area of his expertise they relied upon with regards to her psychological condition the report from doctor neuro psychologist when they come to public employee plans they are a substantive law test the courts in michigan of long held that you do not overturn a decision made by a board of trustees of a retirement system in granting denying disability retirement absent a showing of fraud abuse of discretion that the decision is clearly contrary to the plan provisions or that it's clearly contrary to the facts and the evidence is submitted on the record in this instance the court's if you know the  record was clearly set forth the board's decision was totally appropriate under the circumstances they fulfilled their fiduciary duties the circuit court under the i'm sorry the district court understood that deny the the plaintiffs request an appeal  to reconsider his decision for a number of recent but the most specific was that it appeared to them that he had not applied the job specific standard of disability they hundred facts found that his underlying statement of facts would support granting a disability and they voted to have him review under the job specific standard applied by the retirement  the shooting never did that he was never able to do they out because the plan administrator never sent the job specific standard to shruti to review so that he could reconsider his decision under that standard town send a letter email to the plan administrator when she realized his opinion was not being made in accordance with the job specific stand and she refused to do so she failed to send it to him in the never reevaluated his decision with the underlying facts that she would have difficulty doing your own job the same thing who would file and that she might be able to do some other chop a fact which was denied by the county they had the stay under the difference between shoot is opinion and how moots opinion on the certification was because they apply different standards and shoot it would seem to able to apply the correct standard because it was never given to him when the employer furthermore supported that when town was reviewed one month after applying for disability and boy he rejected it she went to the she was asked to have an examination with the employer's doctor in the employer's doctor refused to let her return to work or you're here is because the county bank marmont commission is above it in a sense to separate it out i think we have your case and your time is expired so this case will be submitted the remaining case will be submitted on the