Case Name: THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant, v. Cathy D. HENDERSON, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2003-11-18
Citations: 867 So. 2d 262
Docket Number: No. 2002-CC-01044-COA
Parties: THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant, v. Cathy D. HENDERSON, Appellee.
Judges: Before McMILLIN, C.J., MYERS and GRIFFIS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 867
Pages: 262–266

Head Matter:
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant, v. Cathy D. HENDERSON, Appellee.
No. 2002-CC-01044-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Nov. 18, 2003.
Rehearing Denied March 9, 2004.
Office of the Attorney General by Mary Margaret Bowers, attorney for appellant.
Eugene Burton Gifford, Booneville, Bradley D. Tennison, attorneys for appel-lee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., MYERS and GRIFFIS, JJ.

Opinion:
MYERS, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Cathy D. Henderson applied for disability benefits from the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). Her application was denied. After exhausting administrative reviews, Henderson appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The circuit court reversed the PERS decision, and PERS now appeals to this Court, asserting two issues for our consideration:
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN REWEIGHING THE FACTS AND SUBSTITUTING ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IN FINDING THAT MS. HENDERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE RECEIPT OF DISABILITY BENEFITS.
II. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT MS. HENDERSON PRESENTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF DISABILITY FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED.
FACTS
¶ 2. Henderson terminated her employment with the Prentiss County School District, where she worked as a teacher's assistant, on May 21, 1998. She had twelve years of service credit. Henderson claimed disability as the result of arthritis and fibromyalgia. She claimed always to be in severe pain, making it difficult for her to write her name or drink a glass of tea. She has not had any special tests for arthritis or x-rays to diagnose her condition. She also claims to suffer from "fainting spells" and from depression, although she has never seen any mental health professional for the depression.
¶ 3. Physicians treated Henderson for pain as far back as 1995. Medical records show that Henderson has had an MRI, and several tests on her heart, all of which found no abnormalities.
¶ 4. PERS first denied Henderson's disability claim after a hearing in March 1999. Henderson then appealed to the circuit court. That court remanded for a consideration of the Social Security Administration's findings of disability. PERS again recommended denying benefits to Henderson. Henderson then appealed again to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. That court found the PERS decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence and to be arbitrary and capricious. The circuit court reversed PERS. Aggrieved by the circuit court's decision, PERS now appeals.
Standard of Review
¶ 5. A reviewing court shall let the decision of an administrative agency stand unless the agency's decision (1) was not supported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary and capricious, (3) was beyond the power of the agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party. URCCC 5.03; Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Marquez, 774 So.2d 421, 429(¶ 32) (Miss.2000). It is not this Court's job to determine whether the claimant has presented enough evidence to prove she is disabled, but whether PERS has presented enough evidence to support its finding that the claimant is not disabled. Doyle v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 808 So.2d 902, 905(¶ 8) (Miss.2002).
Legal Analysis
¶ 6. We find the PERS decision to be supported by substantial supporting evidence, and therefore we reverse the ruling of the circuit court. "Substantial evidence" requires there to be more than a mere suspicion. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ross, 829 So.2d 1238, 1241(1113) (Miss.2002) (citing Marquez, 774 So.2d at 425).
¶ 7. To support its findings, PERS notes that Henderson did not appear to be in pain for the approximately one hour hearing she attended. Additionally, PERS notes that Henderson's cognitive functions, which are not in controversy, appear intact. These observations were made by three medical doctors who also reviewed Henderson's medical records. Some of her conditions, notably fibromyalgia, are controversial in the medical community. In fact, Henderson's physician even noted that he reached this diagnosis only by ruling out every other possible cause of the symptoms Henderson reported.
¶ 8. The circuit court appears to place a good deal of weight on the findings of the Social Security Administration. This is not, alone, determinative of a finding of disability. Id. at 1242(¶ 23). The only other evidence which supports Henderson's case for disability appears to be anecdotal evidence. While we do not require Henderson to prove to us that she is disabled, PERS' decision is supported by much more substantial evidence than in Henderson's claim.
¶ 9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.
McMILLIN, C.J., AND SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. CHANDLER, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY KING, P.J., AND BRIDGES, J. IRVING, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.