Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. V. Freeman
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01942-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-20-2004 | |
* 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). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Interest - Law of the case doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller, P.J., Cobb, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Admin / Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-29-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: Ordered PERS to reinstate Freeman’s disability status and benefits with back pay. Case Number: 251-99-0913-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Public Employees' Retirement System |
MARY MARGARET BOWERS |
||
| Appellee: | John P. Freeman | 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 - Interest - Law of the case doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | In Freeman v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. of Miss., 822 So. 2d 274 (Miss. 2002), the Supreme Court held that the decision of the Public Employees’ Retirement System to terminate John Freeman’s disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. Upon remand, the circuit court ordered PERS to reinstate Freeman’s disability status and benefits with back pay. However, the next day, Freeman’s attorney submitted a proposed amended order that provided for the award of interest on the unpaid benefits. PERS submitted a letter opposing the amended order the same day Freeman’s attorney sent the proposed amendment. The court ordered PERS to pay legal interest at the rate of 8% to be calculated from the date of the first reinstated monthly benefit. PERS appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | PERS argues that the court was without power to order the payment of interest, because there is no provision under Mississippi law that empowers a court to grant interest in a case such as this. An issue not raised before the lower court is deemed waived and is procedurally barred. Because Freeman failed to raise the issue of interest in the proceedings before PERS and the court below, the procedural bar applies. In addition, a mandate issued by the Supreme Court is binding on the trial court on remand, unless the case comes under one of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine. The exceptions include material changes in evidence, pleadings or findings, and the need for the Court to depart from its former decision after mature consideration so that unjust results will not occur. The mandate in this case did not address interest but simply ordered reinstatement of Freeman’s disability status and his benefits with back pay only. Because there is no applicable exception to the law of the case doctrine, the circuit court exceeded the scope of the mandate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
