WPC .# U: % 0(b w@4Sgv 0J~ 0T 0^ 0hz 0r 0|T 0 0V 1u 0d[U *B) AQ c 0D) 0@m 0D DC D/4 Bc B D3 AM  v~0 vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX($- - DD  D D [ Ӏ_#3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  7Border 1dd((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd!#%C << G  !  #d#  ""     YYY FILEDXApril15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(EG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .       \RA'\7OXXdd7      !R*+%A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE XLEONPARDUE,JR.,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019707CH00312VS.      )      ) DavidsonChancery      ) No.961232IITHEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENT )      OFNASHVILLE&DAVIDSON  )COUNTYandtheMETROPOLITAN )EMPLOYEEBENEFITBOARD,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ APPEALEDFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLECAROLL.McCOY,CHANCELLORANNBUNTINSTEINERSTEINER&STEINER214SecondAvenueNorthSuite203Nashville,Tennessee372011644 AttorneyforPlaintiff/AppellantJAMESL.MURPHY,IIIDirectorofLaw̜DepartmentofLawoftheMetropolitaǹGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty̛CHRISTIE.PEARSON̜204MetropolitanCourthouseNashville,Tennessee37201 AttorneyforDefendant/Appellee@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:TODD,P.J.,M.S.KOCH,J. @ OPINION X  InthisappealoftheMetropolitanBenefitBoardsdenialofadisabilitypension,thepetitionerassertsthatthedecisionisunsupportedbysubstantialandmaterialevidence,thattheBoardshouldhavegivenmoreweighttothetreatingphysicianstestimony,andthatthereviewingcourtshouldhaveconductedadenovoreviewoftheBoardsdecision.TheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyconductedalimitedreviewanddismissedthepetition.Weaffirm.@ I.   LeonPardue,Jr.,anemployeeoftheMetropolitanPublicWorksDepartment,appliedforamedicalpensioninNovemberof1994.Hisclaim,supportedbytheopinionofhistreatingphysician,wasthatadegenerativejointdiseaseandchronicpainsyndromerenderedhimunabletoperformhisdutiesasaloaderanddriverofachippertruck.TheMetropolitanBenefitBoardreferredMr.Parduetoindependentmedicalandpsychologicalspecialists,andthespecialistsreportedthattheycouldfindnoobjectivebasisforworkrestrictions.OnAugust14,1995,theBoarddeniedthedisabilityapplication.  FromAugustof1995untilFebruaryof1996thequestionbouncedfromonecommitteetoanother,totheBoardandbacktothecommittees.Therecordwasperiodicallysupplementedwithothermedicalevidence,andatonepointthepensioncommitteerecommendedthattheBoardreconsideritsprioractionandgrantMr.PardueapensionretroactivetoSeptemberof1994.ThemotionfailedinatievotebeforetheBoard.OnFebruary26,1996,theBoardvotedforafinaltimeandrefused,byavoteoffourtothree,toreconsideritspriorϜdenial. @ II.   OnappealMr.ParduearguesthattheBoardsactionshouldbereviewedundertheTennesseeAdministrativeProceduresAct,Tenn.CodeAnn.45101,etseq.TheBoard,however,isanagencyoftheMetropolitanGovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,andtheAdministrativeProceduresActdoesnotcover countyandmunicipalboards,commissions,committees,departmentsoroffices.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.45106(a).Thepropermethodofreviewingadecisiondenyingapensiontoacivilservantisbythecommonlawwritofcertiorari.Kendrickv.CityofChattanooga,799S.W.2d668(Tenn.App.1990);Tenn.CodeAnn.279114.  Underthecommonlawwritourreviewoftheevidenceisseverelylimited.WeonlyexaminetherecordtoseeifthereisanymaterialevidencetosupporttheBoardsaction.Wattsv.CivilServiceBd.,606S.W.2d274(Tenn.1980);Lansdenv.Tucker,321S.W.2d795at797(Tenn.1959).InthiscasethereisevidenceintherecordfromwhichtheBoardcouldconcludethatMr.Parduewasnotdisabled.MorethanoneexaminingphysicianrenderedanopinionthatMr.Parduecouldreturntowork.@ III.   Inarelatedargument,Mr.Parduecontendsthatinweighingtheevidencebeforeit,theBoardshouldhavegivengreaterweighttothetestimonyofhistreatingphysician.Thecasescitedforthatproposition,however,donotsupporttheargument.InCrossnov.PublixShirtFactory,814S.W.2d730(Tenn.1991),aworkerscompensationcasedecidedbyatrialjudge,theSupremeCourtsaid:8 8 Whenthemedicaltestimonydiffers,thetrialjudgemustobviouslychoosewhichviewtobelieve.Indoingso,heisallowed,amongotherthings,toconsiderthequalificationsoftheexperts,thecircumstancesoftheirexamination,theinformationavailabletothem,andtheevaluationoftheimportanceofthatinformationbyotherexperts.814S.W.2dat731.Whilethetrialjudgedidgivemoreweighttothetreatingphysicianstestimonyinthatcase,theruleannouncedbytheSupremeCourtϜconcernsthecredibilityofthewitnessesratherthanwhetherthewitnesswasatreatingoraconsultingphysician.  TheBoardsauthorityisderivedfromsection3.28.060oftheMetropolitanCode.Thatsectionprovides:8 8 Theboardshallhavetheexclusiveauthoritytodeterminethedisabilityandcontinuationofdisabilityofadisabledmember...Anapplicantforadisabilitypensionshallfurnishtotheboarda disabilityreport,asprovidedinthissection,andsuchothermedicalorotherinformationasmayreasonablyberequiredbytheboardforthepurposeofestablishingdisability.Theboardmaysecureadditionalmedicalorotherevidenceasitdeemsnecessaryandappropriate.Onthebasisofthedisabilityreport,medicalandotherinformationastheboardhasassembled,theboardshallthereupondeterminewhetherornottheapplicantisadisabledmember....  ThisprovisiondoesnotrequiretheBoardtogivemoreweighttoanyparticularpartoftheevidencebeforeit.WethinkthattheBoardhasthepowertomakeitsowndecisionwithrespecttothecredibilityofthewitnesses.@ IV.   Finally,Mr.Parduearguesthatthecourtsshouldreviewtherecorddenovoundersection12.07(h)oftheMetropolitanCharter.Thatsection,applicableonlytoareviewofadecisionbytheCivilServiceCommission,providesforadenovoreviewofadecisiondismissinganemployeefromtheservice.  InBushv.EmployeeBenefitBoard,792S.W.2d932(Tenn.App.1990),weheldthattheBenefitBoardoftheMetropolitanGovernmentandtheCivilServiceCommissionaredistinctandseparateboardsexercisingdiscretefunctionsprescribedbytheMetropolitanCharter.Thecharterprovisionsaffectingoneboardorcommissiondonotapplytotheother.Therefore,thedenovoreviewprovisionsaffectingtheCivilServiceCommissiondonotapplytotheBenefitBoard.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.ThecauseisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsnecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellee.       ____________________________       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:̜_______________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  Ԝ