Henley v. PERS
| Docket Number: | 2008-SA-01230-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-02-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Determination of disability - Section 25-11-113 - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-28-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: PERS’S DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS Case Number: 251-04-641CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | EMMA HENLEY |
MATTHEW YARBROUGH HARRIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI | 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 - Determination of disability - Section 25-11-113 - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Emma Henley applied for hurt-on-the-job disability benefits through the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi. The Disability Appeals Committee recommended that her application be denied. The PERS Board of Trustees adopted the Committee’s recommendation and denied Henley’s claim for benefits. Henley appealed the decision of the Board to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the decision. Henley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Determination of disability Henley argues that since the MDOC terminated her employment based upon its determination that she had a disability, which prohibited her from performing the job-related requirements and essential functions of her position, then the Board must also find that she is disabled. Pursuant to section 25-11-113, the decision of whether a person is disabled is for the Board to determine. The statute does not grant authority to a potential recipient’s previous employer to make a determination of whether a claimant meets the definition of disability. Issue 2: Denial of benefits Henley argues that the Board discounted evidence. Substantial evidence is that which provides an adequate basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. Here, the Committee found no persuasive medical evidence that Henley was disabled. Henley had the burden of persuading PERS that she suffered a duty-related disability, and she had to show that she has an objective medical disability that resulted in an occupational disability. Further, she had to show that the medical condition was the result of an accident or trauma that occurred while Henley was working as a correctional officer. The weight of all of the medical records and testimony is a matter for the fact-finder. Here, not all of the medical evidence and testimony support a finding of disability, for example: (1) Dr. Anderson’s finding in January 2002 of “mild preexisting degenerative disk disease”; (2) Dr. Graeber’s nerve-conduction study which found nothing abnormal and detected no clear nerve lesion; and (3) Dr. Holaday’s finding of minor degenerative changes. Also, Henley’s supervisor never certified that Henley was unable to perform her duties. Her supervisor believed that Henley was able to perform her duties, but Henley did not desire to work anymore. Thus, substantial evidence exists to support a denial of disability benefits for Henley. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
