Roberts v. PERS


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CC-01028-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-CC-01028-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-20-2010
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Disability benefits - Expert testimony - Section 25-11-113(1)(a)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2008
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: William F. Coleman
Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO DENY DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Case Number: 251-08-370

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Esther Roberts




ANGELA E. DAVIS-MORRIS



 
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: The 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 - Expert testimony - Section 25-11-113(1)(a)

    Summary of the Facts: Esther Roberts filed an application for disability benefits with the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Roberts appealed to the Disability Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees, which recommended to the PERS Board of Trustees that the benefits be denied because Roberts was not permanently disabled. The Board agreed with the recommendation. Roberts then appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Roberts appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Roberts argues that the order was based solely on the testimony of a doctor who only saw her once. Roberts claims that her treating physicians are all on record with opinions claiming that she cannot return to her job; therefore, the decision by PERS is not supported by substantial evidence. Although these physicians treated Roberts, PERS has the discretion to determine which of the physicians' assessments to consider and how much weight should be given to each assessment. Roberts also argues that because she met the statutory definition of disability, PERS failed to comply with section 25-11-113(1)(a) when it denied her disability benefits. The opinions of Roberts’s treating physicians were presented to the Committee, and the Committee determined what evidence it would consider and how much weight the evidence should be given. This evidence does not prove that Roberts met the statutory criteria.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court