Flowers v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CC-00198-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-00198-SCT ; 2005-CT-00198-SCT ; 2005-CC-00198-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-24-2006 Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Section 25-11-113 - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: DECISION OF PERS BOARD OF TRUSTEES AFFIRMED. Case Number: 251-01-1323 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PATRICIA FLOWERS |
GEORGE S. LUTER |
||
| Appellee: | 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 - Section 25-11-113 - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Patricia Flowers was discharged from her employment at Hinds County Community College. Her initial claim for disability was filed on June 1, 1994. On September 7, 1994, Flowers was informed by PERS that her claim had been denied. She was notified that she had sixty days to reopen her application but was not informed of any rights regarding an appeal. Flowers took no further action on that application. Almost simultaneously with her filing the application with the state employee retirement benefits agency, Flowers filed on May 31, 1994, for disability with the United States Social Security Administration. On October 26, 1995, an administrative law judge determined that she was disabled and entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. There are documents in the record that her entitlement to federal benefits began in November 1994; starting in January 1996 she was being paid $603 each month. After receiving the favorable SSA ruling, Flowers again filed with PERS on December 7, 1995. The PERS Medical Board denied her claim for disability benefits, and the PERS Disability Appeals Committee also recommended denial. The PERS Board of Trustees accepted the recommendation. After the first level judicial review upheld the denial, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further review. On remand, the PERS Disability Appeals Committee conducted a hearing on May 12, 2001, at which Flowers appeared with counsel. The Committee prepared findings, legal conclusions, and a recommendation that Flowers be found not to be disabled. This recommendation was accepted by the PERS Board of Trustees. The circuit court affirmed the PERS decision, and Flowers appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 25-11-113 provides the following elements for a disability claim: a physical or mental incapacity prevents further performance of the usual duty of employment, or lesser duty that the employer may assign at its discretion, or duty of any employment covered by PERS subject to certain limitations; the incapacity is permanent; if the employee has withdrawn from employment, the disability must have occurred within six months of leaving service; and the disability must have been the direct cause of the withdrawal from state service. Flowers argues that she is disabled because of migraine headaches, diabetes, high blood pressure, and arthritis in each knee. The question facing PERS was whether those problems resulted in a qualifying disability under the statute. Flowers argues that at the time of her initial claim, PERS had a policy – not required by statute – of adopting the disability determination reached by SSA. PERS acted on Flowers’ initial claim in 1994, over a year before the SSA ruled. By the time that a determination of disability was made by SSA in 1995, PERS had abandoned its former reliance on such federal decisions. When Flowers thereafter filed a second claim at PERS in late 1995, the new discretionary policy regarding SSA decisions was in effect. PERS recognized that in 1994 Flowers was suffering from a variety of health problems. The record supports the existence of these illnesses. Also present in the record is substantial evidence in support of PERS’s finding that these were illnesses that did not render Flowers disabled in May 1994, as each of the conditions was being successfully treated. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
