Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. V. Stamps
| Docket Number: | 2003-CC-02599-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CC-02599-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-14-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: The motion for rehearing is denied. The original opinion is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor. On Direct Appeal: Reversed and Rendered. On Cross-Appeal: Affirmed. |
|
| 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. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: PERS appeals from an order entered by the circuit court reversing the order of PERS's Board of Trustees which denied Stamps’s claim for disability benefits. Case Number: 251-01-1030CIV |
|
| Note: | Motion to Strike Portion of the Appellant's Response to the Motion for Rehearing is granted. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Public Employees' Retirement System |
MARY MARGARET BOWERS |
||
| Appellee: | Annie L. Stamps | 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 - Conflict of interest - Section 25-11-119 - Hearsay - Due process - Open Meetings Law |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. 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, and Stamps cross-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. Even if the allegations were true, they do not fall under one of the three criteria set forth in URCCC 5.03, and it would not have violated a statutory or constitutional right of Stamps. 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. Stamps’ claim is misplaced because the purpose of the hearing was to consider an appeal of a denial of a disability claim which was based on the documentation submitted and the testimony elicited. The review before the Medical Board was for the purpose of determining whether or not, based on the documentation, the claimant met the requirements for the receipt of a disability benefit. Stamps was afforded due process required by law, and the proceedings were properly conducted according to state law. Issue 6: Conflict of interest Stamps 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. The presumption exists that hearing officers act with fairness and honesty. In order to overcome this presumption, there must be a showing of personal or financial interest on the part of the hearing officer, or evidence of misconduct. Stamps does not even attempt to address or overcome this presumption. In reference to an assistant attorney general being a hearing officer, that office affords counsel to state agencies and there is no conflict or suggestion of unfairness in this arrangement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
