Skip to main content

Totman-Berube v. Maine Public Employees Retirement Sys.

MESUPERCTMarch 12, 2015No. KENap-14-37
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
M. Michaela Murphy
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Maine Superior Court affirmed the Maine Public Employees Retirement System's denial of disability retirement benefits to the petitioner, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate functional limitations from her medical conditions that would prevent gainful employment.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Carol Totman-Berube worked for the Maine Public Employees Retirement System and applied for disability retirement benefits due to medical conditions that she claimed prevented her from working. The retirement system denied her request, so she challenged that decision in court, arguing that her employer failed to properly accommodate her disabilities and that she deserved the benefits. **What the Court Decided** The Maine Superior Court sided with the retirement system and upheld the denial of disability benefits. The court found that Totman-Berube did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that her medical conditions created functional limitations severe enough to prevent her from holding any gainful employment. The court determined that she failed to meet the legal standard required for disability retirement benefits. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights how difficult it can be to obtain disability retirement benefits from public employee retirement systems. Workers must provide strong medical evidence showing that their conditions create specific functional limitations that prevent them from performing any type of work, not just their current job. Simply having a medical diagnosis is not enough – employees must demonstrate how their condition actually limits their ability to work.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Bocchino
MESUPERCTSep 2019
Defendant Win
Marks
MESUPERCTAug 2018
Plaintiff Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.