Court Opinion

ID: 9962982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:02:15.867799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:00.170772
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 279
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION IV
                                        No. CV-22-650

 GREGORY MILLS                                   Opinion Delivered April 24, 2024
                                APPELLANT
                                                 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
                                                 COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                              [NO. 04CV-21-213]

 ARKANSAS LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE                  HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT,
 RETIREMENT SYSTEM                               JUDGE

                                   APPELLEE
                                                 AFFIRMED

                                  MIKE MURPHY, Judge

       Appellant Gregory Mills, a former firefighter, appeals from the denial of his claim for

duty disability retirement. The Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System (LOPFI)

denied his request. The LOPFI Board of Trustees (the Board) confirmed this decision. Mills

appealed the Board’s findings to the Benton County Circuit Court, which upheld the

Board’s findings. On appeal, Mills seeks reversal, alleging that the ruling is not supported

by substantial evidence and that the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an

abuse of discretion. He also asks us to consider that as both the agency determining eligibility

and the plan administrator, LOPFI has an inherent conflict of interest. We affirm.

       Mills was employed as a firefighter and an emergency medical technician beginning

in 2008. Most recently, he worked for nine years with the Bella Vista Fire Department and
volunteered at the Little Flock Fire Department. In 2017, Mills began seeking help through

the anonymous first-responder hotline. In June 2019, he sought formal treatment and began

therapy in July for “recurrent and intrusive recollections of traumatic events” that were

affecting his well-being.

       In October 2019, the City of Bella Vista placed him on medical leave in response to

his doctor’s statement that he was undergoing eye movement desensitization and

reprocessing therapy and that, if at all possible, Mills needed to avoid new traumatic events.

The City’s letter stated, “We have concluded that the nature of your position as a

Firefighter/Paramedic, even if you currently are not on ambulance duty, could put you in a

work situation at any time that would result in a ‘new traumatic’ event. . . . [T]herefore

effective immediately [we] are placing you on medical leave of absence.” On April 4, 2020,

the Bella Vista Fire Department terminated his employment because Mills was notified that

he had been approved for a long-term disability policy.

       On April 14, Mills applied for duty-related disability benefits, asserting a claim of

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which he alleged resulted from experiences occurring

in the line of duty.

       Arkansas Code Annotated section 24-10-607(c)(1)(A) and (B) (Supp. 2023) provides

the legal standard that Mills had to meet to receive duty-related disability retirement benefits:

       (c)(1)(A) Any active member who while an active member becomes totally and
       permanently physically or mentally incapacitated for any suitable duty as an employee
       as the result of a personal injury or disease that the board finds to have arisen out of
       and in the course of his or her actual performance of duty as an employee may be

                                               2
       retired by the board upon proper application filed with the board by or on behalf of
       the member or former member.

           (B) The employee shall be retired only if, after a medical examination of the
       member or former member made by or under the direction of a physician or
       physicians designated by the board, the physician reports to the plan in a manner
       prescribed by the board that the member or former member is physically or mentally
       totally incapacitated for the further performance of any suitable duty, that the
       incapacity will be permanent, and that the member or former member should be
       retired.

       The Board’s designated physician, Dr. Podkova, examined Mills and reviewed his

medical records submitted to LOPFI. On June 29, 2020, Dr. Podkova issued a detailed

report and determined that Mills was not totally and permanently disabled from his

firefighting activity. Dr. Podkova concluded that Mills met the criteria for PTSD and that it

was more likely than not that Mills’s PTSD arose from his employment. However, she opined

that the disability was not total and permanent due, among other things, to Mills’s mental

status, the severity of his impairment, his noted improvement in symptoms with treatment,

his presentation, and the fact that he continued to volunteer with the Little Flock Fire

Department in addition to his full-time employment with the Bella Vista Fire Department

for a period of years after he started seeking help for his PTSD symptoms.

       Dr. Podkova’s report provided information from three opposing physicians that

reported Mills had become completely and permanently disabled around October 24, 2019.

Concerning the opposing opinions, Dr. Podkova stated,

       This information was insufficient to dissuade me from my opinion. As noted earlier,
       Mr. Mills’ symptoms do not appear severe and he continued to volunteer for a
       different fire department while he was reporting serious problems meeting his work
       responsibilities at the Bella Vista Fire Department. While his symptoms may have

                                             3
       been more severe in the past, he reported improvement with treatment. It should also
       be noted Dr. Mecum initially noted Mr. Mills’ disability was not total or permanent
       but she later amended her opinion.

       On June 30, the executive director of LOPFI sent a letter to Mills notifying him that

because of the results of Dr. Podkova’s examination, LOPFI will not be permitted to approve

a duty disability benefit. Mills filed a timely appeal to the Board. In accordance with the

appeal process, Mills submitted additional evidence to support his case. LOPFI provided the

additional evidence to Dr. Podkova and asked her to review the new information and advise

whether the results of the June review had changed. Dr. Podkova issued an addendum to

her report that stated, “Overall, the totality of the information available to me did not

support total and permanent disability.”

       On January 7, 2021, a hearing was held before the Board. A “joint exhibit” containing

all Mills’s pertinent medical records were introduced into evidence as well as Dr. Podkova’s

reports. Mills testified at the hearing, but no witnesses were presented to corroborate his

testimony. On the basis of the testimony, exhibits, and other evidence presented, the Board

determined, by a unanimous vote, that “after thoroughly weighing all the medical opinions

in the record,” Mills did not show that a total and permanent disability is present. The Board

concluded that because Mills’s condition was not total and permanent, it did not meet the

statutory requirements for an award of duty disability.

       On January 26, Mills sought judicial review of the decision by the Benton County

Circuit Court. Following a hearing, the court entered an order affirming the LOPFI decision.

This appeal followed.

                                              4
       This appeal is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Our review of

an appeal under the APA is directed, not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision

of the agency. Sexton v. Local Police and Fire Ret. Sys., 2016 Ark. App. 496, 506 S.W.3d 248.

For purposes of our review of this case, the APA provides that the agency decision may be

reversed or modified if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because

the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are not supported by

substantial evidence or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2014). This court reviews the entire record to

determine whether any substantial evidence supports the agency decision. Jones v. Ark. Loc.

Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 2018 Ark. App. 287, at 2–3, 550 S.W.3d 27, 29. In determining

whether substantial evidence exists to support an agency decision, we ascertain whether there

is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the agency’s

conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether we would have made a different decision but rather

whether reasonable minds could conclude as the agency did. Id.

       Mills first argues the denial of duty disability benefits was not based on substantial

evidence. His argument is a request to reweigh the evidence.

       Dr. Podkova examined and interviewed Mills and reviewed all of his submitted

medical records. While she agreed with the other medical professionals that Mills suffers

from PTSD that resulted from his employment, she reported that Mills was not totally and

permanently disabled. She believed Mills’s symptoms could improve with treatment because

                                              5
he did not present with severe symptoms during her evaluation, and he consistently

presented himself with a normal affect.

       Dr. Podkova found it significant that Mills was volunteering while he also reported

symptoms of PTSD before he went on medical leave. While he had not volunteered since

2019, he began treatment for PTSD symptoms in 2017. She found it counterintuitive to seek

more firefighting work if that work was causing severe psychological distress. Additionally,

she noted that Mills was seeking out stimuli related to the fire department; for instance, he

attended a 9/11 memorial service for emergency responders. Mills contends that it is the

mentality of a firefighter to “suck it up and go on”; and while this may be so, Dr. Podkova’s

report acknowledges that a change in vocation may be difficult, but it is not considered to

be a traumatic event according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (5th

ed. 2013).

       Dr. Podkova also opined that Mills has not received the most effective treatment

available for his condition because research shows that trauma-focused therapy is highly

effective in treating PTSD. Overall, her evaluation is valid and supported by evidence such

that a reasonable mind could reach this conclusion. Moreover, Mill’s subjective symptoms

were not corroborated by any witness testimony other than his own.

       Mills contends that because three other experts reached the opposite conclusion of

that of Dr. Podkova, “[a]t the very least, a ‘fair-minded person’ would raise an eyebrow that

‘the Board’s medical advisor’ was the only medical professional who believed that [Mills] was

not totally and permanently disabled.” However, as he acknowledges, this is not a “majority

                                              6
rules” situation; so even if there are three other conflicting opinions, it does not mean that

Dr. Podkova’s report is not substantial. Dr. Podkova offered an explanation as to why the

opposing information did not dissuade her from her own opinion, referring to detailed

scientific observations and research studies.

       The credibility and the weight of the evidence are within the Board’s discretion, and

it is the prerogative of the Board to believe or disbelieve any witness and to decide what

weight to accord that evidence. Williams v. Ark. State Bd. of Physical Therapy, 353 Ark. 778,

785, 120 S.W.3d 581, 586 (2003). Even if we might have made a different choice, the Board’s

choice cannot be displaced because it is supported by substantial evidence.

       Next, Mills contends his rights were prejudiced because LOPFI’s denial was arbitrary,

capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion. This argument lacks merit.

       The requirement that the agency’s decision not be arbitrary or capricious is less

demanding than the requirement that it be supported by substantial evidence. Collie v. Ark.

State Med. Bd., 370 Ark. 180, 187, 258 S.W.3d 367, 372 (2007). To be invalid as arbitrary or

capricious, an agency’s decision must lack a rational basis or rely on a finding of fact based

on an erroneous view of the law. Id. Where the agency’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence, it automatically follows that it cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary. Id.

       Mills fails to provide convincing additional support to substantiate his claim that the

Board acted without consideration and with a disregard of the facts or circumstances of the

case. Because there is substantial evidence on the record supporting the Board’s decision,

the decision cannot be classified as arbitrary and capricious.

                                                7
       For his final point, Mills argues that as both the agency determining eligibility and

the plan administrator, LOPFI has an inherent conflict of interest that should be considered

on appeal. However, it is essential to judicial review under the APA that issues must be raised

before the administrative agency appealed from or they will not be addressed by this court.

Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. 205, at 23–24, 307

S.W.3d 6, 20. Because Mills failed to raise this argument below, we will not address it.

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON and THYER, JJ., agree.

       Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure & Thompson, P.A., by: Sarah L. Waddoups, for

appellant.

       Richard L. Ramsay, for appellee.

                                               8