Knight v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01586-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CC-01586-COA ; 2010-CC-01586-COA ; 2010-CT-01586-SCT ; 2010-CT-01586-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2012 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Court of Appeals Reversed; Circuit court Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Permanent disability - Medical evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Kitchens, Chandler and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlson, P.J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Dickinson, P.J., Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissent Joined By : Carlson, P.J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Dickinson, P.J., Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-30-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED PERS’S DENIAL OF DISABILITY Case Number: 251-07-954-CIV-SY |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court after finding that the Appellee's denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO73997.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dorothy Knight |
GEORGE S. LUTER |
||
| Appellee: | Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi | JANE L. MAPP |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Disability benefits - Permanent disability - Medical evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dorothy Knight worked as a committee assistant for the Mississippi State Senate for more than twenty-five years. She was required to be on her feet most of the day, walk up and down stairs, stand at the copy machine, prepare for committee meetings, and perform administrative and clerical tasks. On April 28, 2006, she filed an application for retirement benefits with PERS, seeking non-duty-related disability benefits. Within a few months, she had resigned from her job. Her medical information on her PERS application stated that her disability consisted of severe pain for seventeen years which came from the insides of her feet; numbness in her feet, which caused her to feel off-balance; and swollen and red feet, with broken capillaries on top of her feet. The PERS Disability Appeals Committee agreed with the finding of the Medical Board that Knight had failed to prove permanent disability. Knight appealed to circuit court which ruled in favor of PERS. Knight appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Knight argues that the circuit court erred in affirming the decision of PERS, because its decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is legally incorrect. Knight’s medical history is extensive. Employers and coworkers testified and acknowledged the physical debilitation and excruciating pain experienced by Knight. Knight’s coworkers and employer testified that she could not find medication that would relieve her pain, that she had fallen many times because of her lack of balance, and that she was in constant pain. Her job required constant movement. Because Knight was always on her feet, the pain worsened and had manifested itself as chronic pain. Regardless of the cause of the pain, it had not subsided. Knight’s supervisor stated that she was a very good employee and did the best she could in spite of her chronic pain, which was worsening and making it difficult to work. Dr. Blount stated in his medical report that Knight should have only a sedentary job, that she should not have to walk long distances (which was required for her job) and that she potentially had peripheral neuropathy. With Dr. Blount’s statements that Knight could not continue the tasks required of her job (walking long distances) and that she was at a maximum medical improvement, Knight presented enough medical evidence to show that she was physically incapacitated for the job she was employed to do, that it was likely permanent, and that she should be retired. Moving Knight from a position of committee assistant to a sedentary job would not be within the duties of her employment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
