PERS v. Card
| Docket Number: | 2007-SA-00109-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-SA-00109-SCT ; 2007-SA-00109-COA ; 2007-CT-00109-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-03-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART ON DIRECT APPEAL AND AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Regular benefits - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) - Impairment - Hurt-on-the-job disability - Section 25-11-114(6) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-12-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: AFFIRMED THE PERS BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ DECISION REGARDING MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 25-11-114(6) BENEFITS AND REVERSED BOARD’S DECISION REGARDING MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 25-11-113(1)(a) BENEFITS Case Number: 251-04-687CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM |
MARY MARGARET BOWERS |
||
| Appellee: | MARY CARD | GEORGE S. LUTER |
|
|
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 - Regular benefits - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) - Impairment - Hurt-on-the-job disability - Section 25-11-114(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Card applied for hurt-on-the-job disability retirement benefits from the Public Employees’ Retirement System. The Disability Appeals Committee recommended that her application be denied. The Committee also denied Card regular disability. The PERS Board of Trustees adopted the Committee’s recommendation and denied Card’s claim. Card appealed to circuit court which affirmed the Board’s denial of hurt-on-the job benefits, but reversed the Board’s denial of regular disability benefits. PERS appeals, and Card cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Regular disability PERS argues that the circuit court erred by granting Card regular disability benefits under section 25-11-113(1)(a), because the court substituted its judgment for that of the Board’s. Disability is defined as the inability to perform the usual duties of employment or the incapacity to perform such lesser duties, if any, as the employer, in its discretion, may assign without material reduction in compensation, or the incapacity to perform the duties of any employment covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement System that is actually offered and is within the same general territorial work area, without material reduction in compensation. The Board heard evidence from two opposing doctors in this case. Both doctors assigned permanent impairment ratings to each of Card’s hands. Dr. Lowe determined that Card could not return to work, and Dr. Terry found that Card was able to work. However, the Board found Dr. Terry’s findings to be more reliable. The Board, through its medical doctors, was in a far better position to evaluate whether Card’s subjective complaints of pain amounted to a disability, and the circuit court improperly reweighed the medical evidence. Card argues that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Board chose not to include evidence of Card’s vocal impairment in its decision of whether Card was disabled. Card testified that her vocal cords became paralyzed during her heart bypass surgery. Had the Committee only addressed whether Card was entitled to hurt-on-the-job disability benefits, it would have been correct in excluding the evidence of Card’s vocal paralysis as her heart surgery occurred after her last day of work. However, section 25-11-113(1)(a) regarding regular disability has no requirement that the injury occur while the employee is working. While on leave without pay, Card remained a member of PERS; thus, the Committee erred by not considering Card’s vocal cord impairment. By improperly disregarding any evidence of Card’s vocal cord impairment, the Committee failed to determine whether that impairment constitutes a permanent disability for which Card is entitled to regular disability benefits. Thus, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and remanded with instruction to remand to the PERS Disability Appeals Committee to consider whether Card’s vocal cord impairment is a permanent disability that would entitle Card to an award of regular disability benefits. Issue 2: Hurt-on-the-job disability Card argues that the circuit court erred by affirming the Board’s denial of hurt-on-the-job benefits. Section 25-11-114(6) provides disability benefits for any active member who becomes disabled as a direct result of an accident or traumatic event resulting in a physical injury occurring in the line of performance of duty, regardless of the number of years of service. Card did not present the evidence required to prove that her carpal tunnel was caused by an accident or traumatic event. Instead, the evidence shows that she consistently experienced problems with carpal tunnel as far back as 1998. Thus, the decision of the circuit court as to hurt-on-the-job disability benefits is affirmed on cross-appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
