Pub. Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Lee
| Docket Number: | 2011-SA-00248-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CT-00248-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Disability benefits - Duty-related benefits - Section 25-11-114(6) - Accidental outcome Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE PERS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Case Number: 251-06-420CIV |
|
| Consolidated: 2008-CT-00627-COA Public Employees' Retirement System v. Albert "Butch" Lee; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-06-420CIV; Ruling Date: 01/16/2008; Ruling Judge: Winston Kidd 2009-SA-01630-COA Public Employees' Retirement System v. Albert "Butch" Lee; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-06-420CIV; Ruling Date: 01/16/2008; Ruling Judge: Winston Kidd | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Public Employees' Retirement System |
JANE L. MAPP |
|
|
| Appellee: | Albert "Butch" Lee | MARK C. BAKER SR. | ||
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 - Duty-related benefits - Section 25-11-114(6) - Accidental outcome |
| Summary of the Facts: | Albert Lee worked as an instructor at the Mississippi Fire Academy for more than twenty-one years. In 2004, Lee injured his back while he was on the job and preparing a training scenario for fire academy candidates. Eventually, Lee’s doctor assigned Lee a forty-five-pound lifting restriction and told Lee to find a different line of work. Lee sought disability benefits from the Public Employees’ Retirement System. The PERS Medical Board determined that Lee was eligible to receive regular disability benefits. However, the Medical Board also determined that Lee was not eligible to receive “duty-related” disability benefits. Lee appealed the Medical Board’s decision to the PERS Disability Appeals Committee. The DAC found Lee suffered from a pre-existing congenital problem and that the incident at his job merely aggravated Lee’s pre-existing condition. Consequently, the DAC recommended that the Board of Trustees approve Lee’s request for regular disability benefits and deny Lee’s request for duty-related disability benefits. The Board adopted the DAC’s recommendation. Lee appealed to circuit court which reversed the Board’s decision denying duty-related disability benefits. PERS appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | PERS argues the circuit court erred when it awarded Lee duty-related disability benefits. The Board found that Lee qualified for “regular” disability benefits. However, Lee appealed the Board’s decision that he did not qualify for duty-related disability benefits which are discussed in section 25-11-114(6). To receive “duty-related” disability benefits, Lee was obligated to prove he was an active member; he had become disabled; his disability was a direct result of either an accident or a “traumatic event”; the accident or “traumatic event” resulted in a physical injury; and the physical injury occurred during the performance of a duty. The DAC concluded that because Lee did not suffer a traumatic event, Lee did not injure his back as the result of an accident when he lifted the training dummy and turned to place it in a hole. The DAC did not discuss whether the action that produces the injury must be an accident, or whether it is sufficient that the outcome of the action is accidental. One must be able to recover duty-related disability benefits if the outcome is accidental. The DAC simply concluded that there was no evidence that Lee was injured as the result of an accident. The DAC did not define the term or analyze the circumstances in light of the definition of the term. “Accident” has been defined as “an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens.” There is no evidence that Lee’s symptomatic spondylolisthesis was usual and expected. It was certainly an undesirable result. Consequently, there was not substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Lee’s injury was not an “accident.” The DAC’s conclusion that Lee was not entitled to duty-related benefits was based on Lee’s having previously having received treatment for lower back pain. However, none of those treatments for lower back pain were to alleviate Lee’s spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Lee’s spondylolisthesis had previously been symptomatic. The undisputed evidence is that Lee became symptomatic only after he lifted the training dummy. It is also undisputed that Lee was acting in the performance of a duty. Thus, the circuit court correctly reversed the Board’s decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
