Wright v. PERS
| Docket Number: | 2008-SA-01738-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2009 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Law of the case doctrine - Evidence of disability - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, 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: 09-26-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: AFFIRMED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) DECISION TO DENY DISABILITY BENEFITS Case Number: 251-07-894CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KELLY L. WRIGHT |
KELLY L. WRIGHT (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Law of the case doctrine - Evidence of disability - Section 25-11-113(1)(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kelly Wright filed an application for benefits with PERS. PERS denied Wright’s initial application for disability benefits. Wright then appealed to the Disability Appeals Committee, and the DAC recommended denial of benefits. The PERS Board of Trustees adopted the DAC’s recommendation. Wright appealed to circuit court, which found PERS’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed PERS’s denial of benefits. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to PERS for due process violations, which stemmed from PERS’s subsequent review of a consulting psychiatrist’s report and PERS’s denial of Wright’s opportunity to respond to the psychiatrist’s findings. On remand, PERS again denied disability benefits, but this time the circuit court affirmed the denial. Wright appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Law of the case doctrine Wright argues the law-of-the-case doctrine should foreclose re-litigation of whether she is entitled to benefits. Specifically, she argues because the circuit court originally found PERS’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the circuit court’s decision became the law of the case and could not be re-litigated on remand. The law of the case, once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. However, the doctrine is inapplicable if there are material changes in evidence, pleadings or findings. Wright claims this doctrine applies because PERS did not present additional evidence on remand. However, Wright bore the burden of proving the existence of a disability. On remand, Wright presented additional evidence to the committee in the form of doctors’ opinions, medication and patient history via her mother, and a letter denying renewal of her nursing license. Not only did Wright present additional evidence, but the hearing resulted in new findings by PERS. Because of these material changes in both the evidence presented and the findings by PERS, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply. Issue 2: Evidence of disability An employee must prove non-work-related disability to the medical board according to the requirements of section 25-11-113(1)(a). Fact-finding includes evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and PERS has the sole responsibility for determining which medical evaluations to rely upon. There is a glaring inconsistency in PERS’s reasoning underlying its prior denial and its most recent denial of Wright’s disability claim. In the first case, based on the DAC’s conclusion that Wright was being treated optimally, the DAC found Wright was not disabled. However, on remand, the DAC used the same report to find that Wright “has not received adequate treatment for her illness and needs to be optimized.” These contradictory conclusions form the main bases the DAC relied upon in 2003 and on remand in 2007 to deny Wright’s claim. The DAC’s puzzling contradictory analysis leaves the impression that its decision was indeed arbitrary and without support of substantial, objective evidence. Further, the DAC’s denial also appears to be based in part on pure speculation. In addition, PERS’s rejection of Wright's two physicians’ medical opinions as subjective assessments of Wright’s condition was improper. Furthermore, the substantial evidence sufficient to withstand appellate scrutiny must be found in the record, not in the minds of the doctors sitting on the PERS board. Finally, Wright is prescribed mood altering medications. The Mississippi Board of Nursing classifies working while under the influence of mood altering medications as unprofessional conduct. The DAC failed to consider Wright’s potential legal inability to work as a nurse while taking the prescribed medications. Since PERS’s denial of benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence, the case is remanded to PERS for an award of benefits to Wright. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
