Case v. PERS
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-01704-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-SA-01704-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 07-17-2007 | |
* 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: 01-22-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR AWARD OF DISABILITY BENEFITS |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Circuit Court affirmed the ruling of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Board of Trustees denying her related retirement disability benefits. Case Number: 251-03-642CIV-SY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHERRI S. CASE |
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 - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | : Cherri Case applied for disability retirement benefits based on numerous health problems, including hypertension, heart problems, fibromyalgia, and depression and anxiety. The Public Employees’ Retirement System Board of Trustees denied her non-work related retirement disability benefits. The circuit court found the decision by the PERS Board of Trustees was supported by substantial evidence. Case appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Case argues that PERS’s decision denying her application for disability benefits is not supported by substantial evidence because her medical disability was supported by the reports of her treating internist, cardiologist, and her principal; while the Committee erroneously relied on the report of Dr. Polk, who stated Case could only work parttime. The Committee, utilizing their medical expertise, reviewed Case’s medical records. Notwithstanding Case’s doctors’ opinions, the Committee found that Case’s medical records showed that her blood pressure readings were within acceptable limits on most visits to her doctor. Her cardiology specialists’ and doctor’s medical records showed only a few instances where Case’s blood pressure was abnormal. Thus, the Committee sufficiently explained its conclusion that Case’s hypertension was not disabling. Case argues that the Committee erred in refusing to adopt the opinions of her doctors with regard to Case’s arrhythmia. Based on its review of Case’s medical records, the Committee made specific and detailed factual findings regarding Case’s medical history as it pertained to her arrhythmia and found that on numerous occasions Case’s heart-related test results were normal. In declining to rely on Case’s doctors’ opinions, the Committee impliedly found that such opinions were not supported by the medical record evidence. The weight given to the statements of a personal physician is determined by PERS, and it is not for the courts to reweigh the facts. Case argues that the physicians on the Committee did not have the authority to examine her medical records and determine on their own that the opinions were not credible because Case did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the Committee members. However, the physicians on the Committee are permitted to rely on their own expertise, and the Court may rely on such, so long as a thorough set of findings and conclusions explain the expertise they applied. Here, the Committee adequately explained its rejection of the opinions. Also, the Committee’s decision that Case was not disabled as a result of her fibromyalgia is supported by substantial evidence. The Committee found that virtually all of Case’s laboratory studies were normal or within acceptable limits. The Committee noted Case’s testimony that her primary problems were her blood pressure and heart problems, and the Committee found that the evidence indicated that most of Case’s work days missed were attributed to her complaints she related to blood pressure or cardiac complaints. The Committee’s finding that Case was not disabled as a result of arthritis or neck and arm pain is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The independent medical examination conducted by Dr. Polk revealed that Case had grossly normal sensation in her upper extremities, normal muscle tone, and normal hand coordination. Dr. Polk recommended that Case limit overhead work activities due to restrictions in the range of motion in her shoulders, but she found that Case was physically capable of performing the job of a secretary. PERS’s decision with regard to Case’s anxiety and depression is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In finding that Case was not disabled as a result of depression, the Committee relied on the fact that she had not been evaluated or treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has indicated that the fact that an individual has not been evaluated or treated by a specialist does not constitute substantial evidence in support of a finding that an individual is not disabled as a result of anxiety or depression. Therefore, the fact that Case has not been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist for her depression and anxiety is not substantial evidence supporting her denial of benefits. The Committee cited to nothing in the record indicating that Case’s depression and anxiety are not disabling. Because PERS’s finding that Case is not disabled as a result of depression and anxiety is not supported by substantial evidence, the case is reversed and remanded with instructions to award appropriate disability benefits to Case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
