Stevison v. PERS
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-00841-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-SA-00841-SCT2006-SA-00841-COA2006-CT-00841-SCT2006-CT-00841-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-13-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-16-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Denied |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Ability to perform usual duties of employment - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING AND ISHEE, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: Disability Benefits |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT DENIED Case Number: 251-03-1030-CIV-BD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SHERYL STEVISON |
GEORGE S. LUTER |
||
| Appellee: | PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI | 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 - Ability to perform usual duties of employment - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Due to health problems, Sheryl Stevison resigned as a teacher's assistant with the Waynesboro Public School System. She applied for non-duty-related disability benefits with PERS. The PERS Medical Board denied the claim. Stevison appealed to the Disability Appeals Committee, which found that Stevison had not provided any objective medical proof of disability and recommended that the claim be denied. The PERS Board of Trustees approved and adopted the recommendation. Stevison appealed, and the circuit court affirmed the denial of benefits. Stevison appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stevison seeks disability benefits under section 25-11-113(1)(a). Therefore, PERS had to determine whether Stevison was unable to perform the usual duties of employment due to mental or physical incapacity for the further performance of duty and whether such incapacity was likely to be permanent such that Stevison should be retired. PERS found that, while Stevison had provided opinions of disability from two doctors, there was no objective basis for their opinions. PERS noted that her MRI and EMG studies were normal. PERS opined that Stevison's problems had a psychiatric component that was being overlooked, and that fibromyalgia has a psychiatric component that some believe causes the physical component. PERS rejected the evidence of the bone scan based upon its own general medical knowledge. PERS explained that the bone scan's finding of arthritis in every joint contravened general medical knowledge to the effect that it would be quite unusual for arthritis to appear in every joint. This explanation is sufficiently thorough to support PERS's conclusion that the bone scan was inaccurate and thus did not support Stevison's diagnosis of osteoarthritis in every joint. No medical professional expressed any doubts about the legitimacy of Stevison's complaints of pain. The opinions of Stevison’s doctors tended to corroborate Stevison's experience of severe pain while performing the FCE. Because there was no credible, objective test that supported Stevison's subjective complaints, PERS concluded that the doctors’ diagnoses of disabling conditions constituted patient advocacy, not legitimate medical diagnoses. PERS also decided, because Stevison had failed to submit the medical records of all the doctors she saw, that those doctors had opined she was not disabled. However, PERS never requested those records. This record, in addition to Stevison's subjective complaints, contains uncontradicted medical diagnoses of fibromyalgia, piriformis syndrome, Sjogren's syndrome, and depression and her doctor’s uncontradicted opinion that Stevison is disabled from working at her former job as a result of these four conditions. Stevison's employer stated that she was unable to perform the duties of her employment. When PERS foregoes its option to order additional medical records, it cannot assume the missing records contained opinions of no disability as it did in this case. Due to the substantial, uncontradicted evidence of disability before the agency, PERS's determination that Stevison failed to meet her burden was not a reasoned and unbiased evaluation of the record evidence. The denial of disability benefits lacked the support of substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
