Purnell v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CC-00802-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00802-SCT ; 2003-CC-00802-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-31-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Finding of disability - Fair and impartial hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-13-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: THE DECISION OF THE PERS BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO DENY DISABILITY BENEFITS AFFIRMED. Case Number: 251-00-000530-CIV-SY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Patricia Purnell |
GEORGE S. LUTER |
||
| Appellee: | The Public Employees' Retirement System | 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 - Finding of disability - Fair and impartial hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patricia Purnell applied for disability benefits from the State of Mississippi, having worked for the State for over ten years. The medical board reviewed Purnell's application and denied her claim. Purnell appealed and the Public Employees' Retirement Board of Trustees upheld the medical board’s denial of benefits. Purnell then appealed to circuit court which also affirmed the Board’s decision. Purnell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Disability One is disabled where he is unable to perform the usual duties of employment. In addition, one must be unable to perform such lesser duties, if any, as the employer may assign without material reduction in compensation. Finally, there must be a finding that the employee seeking benefits is unable to perform the duties of any employment covered by the PERS that is actually offered and is within the same general territorial work area, without material reduction in compensation. Both Purnell and her daughter testified that Purnell was unhappy when she was transferred to a different job. Purnell believed that her co-employees harbored resentment against her because she earned a higher pay rate than they. Although Purnell requested a declaration of disability based on psychiatric disabilities, no treating physician ever diagnosed Purnell as permanently disabled due to mental problems. While there was evidence that Purnell suffered from chronic pain, there was also evidence that doctors could not find any cause for such. This evidence supports PERS' ruling in which the agency denied Purnell’s eligibility to receive disability benefits. Issue 2: Fair and impartial hearing Dr. Kennedy evaluated Purnell and reported that Purnell was not disabled due to depression or anxiety. Thereafter, he was appointed to the Disability Appeals Committee but recused himself from Purnell’s hearing to avoid an impression of prejudice or lack of impartiality. Purnell argues that Dr. Kennedy's influence was still present at her hearing, his recusal notwithstanding. There are no further steps that the Disability Appeals Committee could take to remove any prejudice aside from Dr. Kennedy's recusal. It would be impossible for the two remaining members to wipe Dr. Kennedy's existence from their memory and no evidence suggests that Purnell was prejudiced. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
