Case Name: Rebecca L. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2002-03-05
Citations: 827 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. 2000-CC-01652-COA
Parties: Rebecca L. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellee.
Judges: Before McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, and MYERS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 827
Pages: 1–6

Head Matter:
Rebecca L. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellee.
No. 2000-CC-01652-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
March 5, 2002.
Rehearing Denied June 11, 2002.
Certiorari Denied Sept. 26, 2002.
Keith Sanders Carlton, Corinth, attorney for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Mary Margaret Bowers, attorney for appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, and MYERS, JJ.

Opinion:
THOMAS, J.,
for the court.
¶ 1. Rebecca L. Johnston claimed to be injured while working as a bookkeeper for the Alcorn County Tax Collector's Office. She applied for disability benefits and was denied by the Public Employees' Retirement System's (PERS's) Medical Board. Johnston requested an appeal and a hearing was held before the Disability Appeals Committee. The Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System affirmed the Committee's decision that Johnston was not permanently disabled as the direct result of a work related accident or traumatic event. Johnston appealed that decision to the Circuit Court of Hinds County which affirmed the decision of the Board of Trustees and the Disability Appeals Committee. Aggrieved, Johnston asserts the following issues:
I. THE BOARD ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT REBECCA JOHNSTON WAS DISABLED.
II. THE BOARD ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT REBECCA JOHNSTON'S DISABILITY WAS DUTY RELATED.
Finding no error, we affirm
FACTS
¶ 2. Rebecca Johnston is a forty-one-year-old who was employed as a bookkeeper with the Alcorn County Tax Collector's office for nine and a quarter years, ending-in November 1997. Johnston had problems with her back as early as 1988, when she underwent her first lower back surgery, a lumbar laminectomy. In 1996 Johnston had spinal disc surgery. She was allowed to return to work after the second surgery in February 1997. Dr. Rodney Olinger, who performed this operation, determined that it was successful.
¶ 3. In June of 1997, while working in the Tax Collector's office, another employee slapped Johnston on the back which caused her to return to Dr. Olinger for treatment because of pain. In July 1997, an MRI showed no definite recurrent disc or infection. Dr. Olinger then recommended that Johnston return to work with some restrictions on her capacity. Johnston claimed that she was unable to return to work, and she filed for disability retirement with the PERS.
¶ 4. Johnston was given a functional capacity examination in August of 1998. The results of this exam concluded that Johnston could occasionally lift weights up to thirty pounds; carry weights up to thirty-five pounds for short distances; had good rotation in sitting and standing; maintained good ability to climb stairs; was able during the procedure to stand and walk forty minutes during the examination; and is capable of sitting for periods of thirty minutes. These results matched the requirements for the job description of bookkeeper and thus, the conclusion was that Johnston could return to work.
¶ 5. After review of the functional capacity examination results, PERS denied Johnston's claim for benefits. Johnston appealed and a hearing was held before the PERS Disability Appeals Committee. The Committee submitted its report to the Board of Trustees of PERS and they held that Johnston was not permanently disabled as defined by PERS law. Johnston appealed the Board's decision to the Hinds County Circuit Court which affirmed the Board's decision.
ANALYSIS
¶ 6. The standard of review in cases such as this is whether the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the powers granted to the Board, or violated Johnston's constitutional rights. Sprouse v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 639 So.2d 901, 902 (Miss.1994). A rebuttable presumption exists in favor the Board's decision, and the burden is on Johnston to prove otherwise. Mississippi Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. Chickasaw County Bd. of Supervisors, 621 So.2d 1211, 1215 (Miss.1993). This Court may not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Board nor reweigh the facts of the case. Mississippi Pub. Service Comm'n v. Merchants Truck Line, Inc., 598 So.2d 778, 782 (Miss.1992). This Court gives due deference to the factual findings of the administrative agency and to the trial judge who adopted those same findings. State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gay, 526 So.2d 534, 535 (Miss.1988).
I. DID THE BOARD ERR IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT REBECCA JOHNSTON WAS DISABLED?
¶ 7. Substantial evidence can be defined as evidence which affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. Davis v. Public Employees' Retirement Sys., 750 So.2d 1225, 1233 (¶ 24) (Miss.1999). Johnston argues that there was sufficient evidence to show that she was disabled. PERS has the responsibility of examining the assessments of medical personnel and determining which ones should be relied upon in making its decision. Byrd v. Public Employees' Retirement System, 774 So.2d 434, 438(¶ 15) (Miss.2000). Under Miss.Code Ann. § 25 — 11—113(l)(a) (Rev. 1999), disability is defined as the following:
The inability to perform the usual duties of employment or the incapacity to perform such lesser duties, if any, as the employer, in its discretion, may assign without material reduction in compensation or the incapacity to perform the duties of any employment covered by the Public Employees' Retirement System (Section 25-11-101 et seq.).
II8. There was testimony by Dr. Olinger regarding Johnston's back problems dating all the way back to 1988. According to Dr. Olinger, Johnston had always had some degree of back spasms. Johnston underwent two back surgeries that left her at a twelve percent impairment rating according to Dr. Olinger, and she was able to return to work successfully after both of these surgeries. After the second "successful" surgery and several months, Johnston was released from Dr. Olinger's care with an improvement and a five percent impairment rating. Any permanent symptoms were not considered by Dr. Olinger to be totally disabling. After Johnston was slapped on the back by a co-worker, Dr. Olinger did not believe further surgery was necessary. An MRI showed no "definite recurrent disc" and Dr. Olinger advised Johnston to return to work.
¶ 9. Johnston also performed well on the functional capacity evaluation. This evidence along with the medical assessment by Dr. Olinger were sufficient, to support a finding that Johnston is not disabled. This decision is within PERS's discretion. Therefore, we hold that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support PERS's decision in this ease.
II. DID THE BOARD ERR IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
REBECCA JOHNSTON'S DISABILITY WAS DUTY RELATED?
¶ 10. In order for a disability to be duty related, there must first be a disability. Due to the discussion above, the issue of whether Johnston suffered an on-the-job injury that led to a disability is moot.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, AND MYERS, JJ., CONCUR. CHANDLER, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BRANTLEY, J.