Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. V. Stamps
| Docket Number: | 2003-CC-02599-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CC-02599-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 01-20-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Conflict of interest - Section 25-11-119 - Hearsay - Due process - Open Meetings Law Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Case Number: 251-01-1030CIV |
|
| Note: | Inactive Link; On Direct Appeal: Reversed and Rendered. On Cross-Appeal: Affirmed. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Public Employees' Retirement System |
|||
| Appellee: | Annie L. Stamps |
|
||
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 - Conflict of interest - Section 25-11-119 - Hearsay - Due process - Open Meetings Law |
| Summary of the Facts: | Annie Stamps was employed by Jackson Public Schools as a teacher for twenty-seven and three-fourths years. In December of 1999, Stamps developed pain in her neck and sought medical attention. Stamps was diagnosed as having a large central herniated disc at the C2-3 level that was compressing and flattening the thecal sac and cord. Stamps underwent surgery, and the only postoperative instructions were for her to wear a neck brace and not engage in any contact sports. Although the doctor told her she could return to work, she did not. Stamps applied for PERS disability. The PERS Medical Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim of inability to perform her duties as a teacher due to her medical condition. Stamps appealed to the PERS Disability Appeals Committee which made its recommendations to the PERS Board of Trustees. The PERS Board of Trustees subsequently denied disability benefits. Stamps appealed to circuit court which reversed the decision. PERS appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Disability benefits In order to qualify for a disability benefit under PERS law, Stamps was required to prove that the conditions upon which she bases her claim are disabling and that the disability was the direct cause of her withdrawal from state service. Stamps did not meet her burden because although she may have needed her surgery, she is clearly able but unwilling to return to her job as a teacher. Her condition, at this time is not debilitating. The PERS Board of Trustees took into consideration all of the medical evidence offered by Stamps. The circuit court relied only on the subjective comments of Stamps, instead of pointing to the objective evidence in the file to support a claim of disability. Stamps’ testimony is refuted by the medical documentation in the record. Although Stamps had been approved for the receipt of disability benefits by the Social Security Administration, PERS is not bound by any finding of the Social Security Administration. Issue 2: Conflict of interest Stamps argues that her referral to the Methodist Rehabilitation Center by a medical board member who is a director of the center constitutes a due process conflict of interest and a violation of the Ethics in Government Law. According to section 25-11-119, which provides that the medical board shall arrange for, and pass upon, all medical examinations required under the provisions of this article, the doctor was acting according to his statutory duties as a member of the Medical Board. In addition, the members of the Medical Board are not elected or appointed officials, and they are not employees of PERS. Therefore, there is no violation of the Ethics in Government Law. Also, the factual allegations made by Stamps are inaccurate. The entire Medical Board requested the evaluation and the doctor in question was merely the referring physician. Stamps also argues that because the hearing officer for the Disability Appeals Committee was employed by the Attorney General of Mississippi as an attorney, a conflict of interest was present. There is no evidence that the hearing was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any suspicion of prejudice or unfairness. In addition, there is no conflict or suggestion of unfairness in this arrangement. Issue 3: Hearsay Stamps argues that the report of the Functional Capacity Examination was hearsay, because it was administered by a therapist who did not appear at the hearing for cross-examination as requested by Stamps. PERS does not have subpoena power for its administrative hearings, and Stamps is not entitled to a cross examination of the therapist. Issue 4: Due process Stamps argues that her due process rights were violated, because the applicable PERS Rules of Hearing Practice and Procedure give no discovery opportunities or the right to subpoena witnesses or documents. Administrative hearings are not trials and are thereby not governed by the same rules which are applicable to courts of law. Issue 5: Open Meetings Law Stamps argues that the hearing before the Disability Appeals Committee and the proceedings before the Medical Review Board violate the Open Meetings Law. Neither the Medical Board nor the Disability Appeals Committee for PERS are subject to the Open Meetings Law of Mississippi. They do not form or determine public policy. The action of the Committee was to propose a statement of facts, provide a conclusion of law, and present its recommendation to the Board of Trustees. These proposals and recommendations, based on the record, are purely advisory in nature. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
