marked them as the parties had marked them. Following the hearing, I issued an Order outlining the parties’ stipulations and identifying the exhibits. Both parties submitted closing briefs. The Petitioner’s Closing Brief was marked “C” and the Respondent’s “D.” On July 7, 2016, I closed the administrative record. Findings of Fact Based on the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing and reasonable inferences from them, I make the following findings of fact: Cheryl Hallen (“Petitioner”) was born in 1959. (Stip.) The Petitioner is right hand dominant. (Stip.) Starting in 1997, the Petitioner was employed by the Worcester School Department as a cafeteria helper. Her job duties included cooking and serving food to students. (Stip.) The Petitioner was responsible for organizing breakfast. She had to lift cases of milk, that weighed about 30 pounds. She also had to lift cases of cereal which weighed about 15 pounds. She had to lift these items from shelves above eye level. (Test.) The Petitioner also worked lunch period. (Test.) The Petitioner had to lift trays of pasta that weighed about 15 pounds. (Test.) The Petitioner had to clean freezers and racks, which required reaching over head. (Test.) The Petitioner worked from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Test.) The Petitioner had a neck injury prior to October 12, 2010. (Test.) On October 12, 2010, the Petitioner injured her right upper extremity while working. This occurred when she was lifting a tray of pasta from an oven rack which was
right shoulder is concerned, she is capable of doing the essential duties of a cafeteria helper.” When asked: “If Ms. Hallen suffers from a right shoulder impingement, is this likely to be permanent.” Dr. Sewall said “The answer is no.” He then wrote that: “[The Petitioner] does not have a shoulder problem. Her problem, I believe, is that she has cervical spondylosis in her neck referring to her shoulder.” (Pet. Ex. 3 pp. On October 16, 2014, the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s application for ADR benefits. (Pet. Ex. 7, Stip.) On October 20, 2014, the Petitioner filed her appeal of the Respondent’s decision. (Pet. Ex. 8, Stip.) On April 15, 2015, Marc Linson, M.D. examined the Petitioner at the request of the Department of Industrial Accidents. The Petitioner told Dr. Linson that “She was injured lifting a rack from an oven on October 12, 2010 developing pain in her neck, shoulder…). (Pet. Ex. 11.) Discussion In order to qualify for an award of accidental disability retirement benefits under G.L. c. 32, § 7(1), an applicant must prove that she is totally and permanently unable to perform the essential duties of her job as the natural and proximate result of a personal injury sustained or hazard undergone, as a result of, and while in the performance of her duties, at some definite place and at some definite time. The applicant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. Lisbon v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., , 255 (1996); Campbell v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., , 1019 (1984); McClain v. Barnstable Cnty. Ret. Bd, No. CR-12-173, at * 8 (DALA Apr. 17, 2015).
Sean Stokes-de Salvo v. State Bd. of Ret.,CR-12-401 *26 (DALA 7/29/2016) citing Yoffa v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., , 111 (1939); Hovhanesian v. New York Life Ins. Co., (1942); Donnell v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-99-296 (DALA), aff'd (CRAB 2000). Dr. Sewall having found the Petitioner’s neck injury disabling correctly considered the value of future physical therapy treatment. See Retirement Bd. of Revere v. CRAB, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 99, 113 (1994). The Petitioner argues that Dr. Linson’s post-panel report should be used to refute the panel majority opinion. This argument ignores that “[t]here is no requirement that the panel physicians agree with the opinions or findings of other clinicians.” Turner v. State Bd. of Ret., CR- 06-27 *10 (DALA 2007) (finding that panel did not employ erroneous standard and panel was not obligated to agree with opinions of other physicians). “[T]he fact that another physician offered a contrary opinion... is not evidence of the use of an erroneous standard by the medical panel.” Hickney v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-07-511* 7 (DALA decision March 19, 2009; no CRAB decision); see Jenkins v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-06-222 (DALA 2007) (noting that “contrary opinions cannot take the place of the medical panel’s properly made assessment”); see also Grannum v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-12-501 * 8 (DALA 10/2/2015) (post-panel medical reports not relevant on medical issue properly addressed by panel). CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Petitioner did not establish that the Regional Medical Panel lacked pertinent information or used an erroneous standard, and I, therefore, affirm the decision of the Respondent to deny the Petitioner’s claim for accidental disability benefits. DIVISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS