Opinion ID: 1198902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Board II's Decision to Terminate Lucas's Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Text: Lucas argues that once an administrative board has determined that an individual is disabled, there should be a presumption of a continuing disability in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. He argues that Board II ignored such a presumption, and that its decision was not supported by substantial evidence. [8] We find his argument unpersuasive. [9] The section of Lucas's brief concerning the adequacy of the evidence consists mainly of a recapitulation of his arguments concerning the meaning of AMC 3.85.045 and the alleged violation of the collateral estoppel doctrine. His only real argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is a claim that Drs. Raffle and Blum engaged in semantical sophistry when they claimed that Lucas was unsuitable for police work yet capable, of it. Lucas argues that this is disingenuous, and devoid of common sense. In his view, since Drs. Raffle and Blum agree with the experts who testified before Board I that Lucas is unsuited for police work, it must logically follow that he remains incapable of performing it, and thus disabled. Thus, he considers Board II's decision unsupported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Lucas's argument, Board I accepted the proposition that Lucas could be unsuitable for police work, yet capable of performing the duties of an officer. In fact, despite general agreement of the expert witnesses before Board I that Lucas was unsuitable for police work from the date of his hiring, Lucas urged that Board to find that he put in five years of capable service before his disability struck and he became unable to perform such work. [10] In sum, both the law of the case as established by Board I and Lucas's own arguments before that Board indicate that it is neither disingenuous nor devoid of common sense to conclude that although someone with a chronic personality disorder is not well suited for work as a policeman, he is nevertheless capable of performing the job. Lucas's only argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is therefore meritless. As described above, Board II's conclusion that Lucas was no longer disabled was based on the uncontested testimony of two expert witnesses. Based on their evaluations of Lucas, and on Lucas's statements to them in interviews, Drs. Blum and Raffle concluded that Lucas demonstrated an ability to control his temper in stressful situations, and would be able to perform the duties of a police officer. This testimony constitutes substantial evidence supporting Board II's decision.