Opinion ID: 1842266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alternatively, Should Stamps's Case Be Reversed and Remanded for a New Hearing since Neither the PERS Medical Board or the Disability Appeals Committee Followed the Mississippi Open Meetings Law and since Parts of the Proceedings of the PERS Medical Board Were Withheld from Stamps?

Text: ¶ 46. Stamps argues, as she argued in the proceedings below, that the hearing before the Disability Appeals Committee and the proceedings before the Medical Review Board violate the Open Meetings Law, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 25-41-1 et seq. Stamps's claim is misplaced because the purpose of the hearing was to consider an appeal of a denial of a disability claim which was based on the documentation submitted and the testimony elicited. The review before the Medical Board was for the purpose of determining whether or not, based on the documentation, the claimant met the requirements for the receipt of a disability benefit. ¶ 47. Stamps also argues that there is substantial evidence that her condition is disabling. She claims that this evidence is not contained in the PERS Disability Appeals Committee decision because the record fails to reflect if two of the members even participated in the decision of her case. Quite obviously, the decision was by a majority vote or otherwise, Stamps would not have been notified that her claim was denied. ¶ 48. Both the Medical Board and the Disability Appeals Committee conducted their inquiries according to PERS guidelines. This Court has previously ruled that ... the Commission [State Oil and Gas Board] is an administrative agency, not a court... It is a rare day when we will reverse the Commission for an action taken in the implementation and enforcement of its own procedural rules. Delta Drilling Co. v. Cannette, 489 So.2d 1378, 1380-81 (Miss.1986). Further, Board rules must afford minimum procedural due process which is (1) notice, and (2) an opportunity to be heard. State Oil & Gas Bd. v. McGowan, 542 So.2d 244, 248 (Miss.1989). Clearly, Stamps was afforded due process required by law, and the proceedings were properly conducted according to state law. This issue is without merit.