Knight v. Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. of Miss.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CC-01586-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CC-01586-COA ; 2010-CT-01586-SCT ; 2010-CT-01586-SCT ; 2010-CT-01586-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-06-2011
Opinion Author: Russell, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

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

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-30-2010
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED PERS’S DENIAL OF DISABILITY
Case Number: 251-07-954-CIV-SY

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Dorothy Knight




GEORGE S. LUTER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi JANE L. MAPP KATHERINE LESTER TRUNDT  

    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 - Medical evidence - Section 25-11-113(1) - Permanent incapacity

    Summary of the Facts: Dorothy Knight filed an application for disability benefits with the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Knight’s application was denied by the PERS Medical Board, and she appealed to the PERS Disability Appeals Committee, which recommended to the PERS Board of Trustees that the benefits be denied. The Board agreed with the recommendation and denied disability benefits to Knight. Knight appealed to circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board. Knight appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: There are two requirements that must be satisfied before an applicant is determined disabled. First, the medical board must evaluate the medical evidence and certify that the applicant is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of duty, that such incapacity is likely to be permanent, and that the member should be retired. Second, the medical board must apply the statutory definition of ‘disability’ as set forth in section 25-11-113(1). Each of Knight’s doctors either offered no opinion regarding Knight’s disability or determined Knight was not disabled. Not a single doctor concluded Knight was permanently incapacitated or incapable of returning to her employment as required under the statute. Although one doctor stated her symptoms were suggestive of peripheral neuropathy, which could suggest the possibility of disability, he ultimately concluded she was not disabled. According to Knight and her colleagues, Knight did not miss work due to pain. In sum, this is a case where evidence to support disability is simply lacking.


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