Opinion ID: 1905700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hearing Officer's Recommendation

Text: [¶ 26] Finally, Kelley argues that the facts support the hearing officer's recommendation that she cannot engage in substantially gainful activity, and that the Board erred when it rejected this recommendation. [¶ 27] It is the final decision of the Board, and not of the hearing officer, that is subject to review. Green v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Servs., 2001 ME 86, ¶ 12, 776 A.2d 612, 616. As the unsuccessful party before the Board, Kelley has the burden to show  more than that there was competent evidence to support her position; she has to demonstrate that there was no competent evidence to support [the Board's] findings. Id. (emphasis in original). [¶ 28] Although there is consensus among Kelley's doctors, the medical board, the hearing officer, the executive director, and the Board that Kelley suffers from lower back pain, there is disagreement as to how this condition translates into a functional limitation and thus impacts her ability to engage in substantially gainful activity. Dr. Schwink's assessment that Kelley is unable to stand or sit for more than thirty minutes at one time without changing her position [12] is in contrast to the evidence of Kelley's fairly active lifestyle, which includes walking, gardening, household chores, and caretaking. [¶ 29] On appeal, the Board was free to investigate and consider all issues of fact or law. 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1)(B). Based on the evidence of Kelley's active lifestyle, the Board could have concluded, as it did, that despite her lower back problems, Kelley could maintain an eight-hour workday, provided that she had the freedom to move about as needed. MPERS's vocational expert provided numerous examples of employment positions that would satisfy this requirement. Because there is competent evidence to support the Board's conclusion, the decision must be affirmed. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.