Odom v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02104-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-14-2004
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Disability benefits - Extension to file appeal - Excusable neglect - M.R.A.P. 4(g)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2003
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL WAS DENIED.
Case Number: 251-02-1645-CIV-SY

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Voncile Odom




GEORGE S. LUTER



 

Appellee: The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARY MARGARET BOWERS  

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 - Extension to file appeal - Excusable neglect - M.R.A.P. 4(g)

Summary of the Facts: The Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System denied Voncile Odom's application for disability benefits. Odom filed her notice of appeal along with a motion to extend time to file her notice of appeal. PERS subsequently filed a response to Odom's motion for extension of time. The judge denied Odom's motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal. Odom then filed a motion to reconsider which was also denied. Odom filed a motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to M.R.A.P. 4(h) on the basis that she was not informed of the denial of her motion for reconsideration. The judge entered an order allowing time to appeal for a period of fourteen days. Odom filed her appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Odom argues that the judge erred in not considering whether excusable neglect existed so as to allow her an extension to file her appeal. According to M.R.A.P. 4(g), a court may, in its discretion, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. Although Odom claims that the judge never considered whether excusable neglect existed, that issue was discussed at the hearing on the matter. Although the judge failed to specifically delineate his reasons for denying the motion, the parties were aware of the issues the judge was ruling on as they had previously argued the issues before him.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court