Opinion ID: 1842266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: On Direct Appeal Did the Circuit Court Err By Reversing the PERS Decision to Deny Stamps Disability Benefits?

Text: ¶ 29. We conclude that the circuit court did, in fact, err by reversing the PERS decision to deny Stamps disability benefits because the PERS decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary and capricious, was made within the scope or power granted to PERS, and did not violate Stamps's constitutional rights. Sprouse, 639 So.2d at 902 (Miss.1994). In Mississippi State Board of Accountancy v. Gray, 674 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Miss.1996), this Court held: A reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency or re-weigh the facts of the case. Chancery and Circuit Courts are held to the same standard as this Court when reviewing agency decisions. When we find the lower court has exceeded its authority in overturning an agency decision we will reverse and reinstate the decision. ¶ 30. In order to qualify for a PERS disability benefit, Stamps was required to prove that the conditions upon which she bases her claim are disabling and that the disability was the direct cause of her withdrawal from state service. Stamps, as a claimant, has the burden of proving to the medical board and to the Appeals Committee that she is in fact disabled, in an initial application for disability benefits. Dishmon, 797 So.2d at 893. There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the action of an administrative agency and the burden of proof is on the one challenging its action. Freeman, 822 So.2d at 280. (quoting Fulce v. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 759 So.2d 401, 404 (Miss.2000)). Stamps did not meet her burden because although she may have needed her surgery, she is clearly able but unwilling to return to her job as a teacher. Her condition, at this time is not debilitating. ¶ 31. The record clearly supports the order of the PERS Board of Trustees, which took into consideration all of the medical evidence offered by Stamps. Although the circuit court stated that it conducted an objective review of the record, we disagree. The circuit court, like the Committee, noted that Stamps suffered a central disc protrusion at C2-3 and also has disc disease at the C5-6. However, unlike the circuit court, the Committee realized that following surgery, there is an expected decrease in range of motion in the neck. The Committee noted that the loss of some mobility in her neck and surgery she underwent would not present any limitations for her job or restriction of her job duties. Quite simply, as confirmed by the following examples, the medical evidence does not establish that Stamps's ailments are disabling. Unlike Stamps's contention, she is capable of performing her work duties from a medical standpoint. Therefore, she is not entitled to disability benefits from the State of Mississippi. ¶ 32. The circuit court relied only on the subjective comments of Stamps, instead of pointing to the objective evidence in the file to support a claim of disability. In its opinion, the circuit court reflected on the testimony offered by Stamps as to the conditions she suffered from as well as the pain she experiences. The circuit court noted that Stamps has been to several physicians as well as a chiropractor, Dr. Hunt, but Dr. Hunt is the only one who stated Stamps was disabled. The circuit court also discussed the fact that Stamps underwent an FCE, yet it neglected to comment on the results of the FCE. The circuit court also did not reference any of the reports of the neurosurgeons who treated Stamps. Again, this Court has held that the weight given to the statements of a personal physician is determined by PERS, and it is not for the courts to reweigh the facts. Dishmon, 797 So.2d at 888. ¶ 33. The Committee, in its findings of fact, noted that Dr. Tennin placed several restrictions on Stamps. However, it was noted that the employer's statement of job requirements did not include any of the activities restricted other than standing. It was further noted that one of the witnesses from the school district testified that the position did not require prolonged standing. Also, Stamps did not return to the classroom after the Christmas holidays, and thus, the witnesses from the school did not actually see her attempt to perform her job duties after she allegedly became too ill to work. Again, it is the duty of PERS to determine which reports garner more weight than others. Byrd, 774 So.2d at 438. This is exactly what the Committee did in its findings of fact. ¶ 34. Stamps's testimony is refuted by the medical documentation in the record. For example, she testified that she was told I had full blown arthritis. She then went on to testify that she did not recall any restrictions placed on her by her neurosurgeon (because there were none). Later in her testimony, she stated that Dr. Capel told her not to engage in any contact sports. Again, she testified that Dr. Capel told her that she has full blown arthritis in her neck. However, there are no medical records that support her statements regarding her having full blown arthritis. She then said that after she went to see Dr. Lewis, he told her not to make any changes. ¶ 35. The circuit court also noted that Stamps had been approved for the receipt of disability benefits by the Social Security Administration. As this Court noted in Doyle v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 808 So.2d 902, 907 (Miss.2002), PERS is not bound by any finding of the Social Security Administration. ¶ 36. Clearly, the Disability Appeals Committee premised its recommendation on the medical evidence in the record. On the other hand, the circuit court failed to explain how the recommendation of the Committee was not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the PERS decision is supported by substantial evidence and is thereby neither arbitrary nor capricious. The circuit court impermissibly reweighed the evidence in this matter and substituted its judgment for that of the administrative agency. Therefore, the order of the Board of Trustees should be reinstated and the decision of the circuit court reversed.