Opinion ID: 1842266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Alternatively, Should Stamps's Case Be Reversed and Remanded for a New Hearing since it is a Conflict of Interest for an Attorney with the Attorney General's Office to Serve as a Member of the Disability Appeals Committee When the Attorney General is the Statutory Legal Counsel to PERS?

Text: ¶ 49. Stamps claims that because Anita Clinton Craig was employed by the Attorney General of Mississippi as an attorney, and she was also a hearing officer for the Disability Appeals Committee, a conflict of interest was present. In her brief, as well as in her argument presented in the proceedings below, Stamps states [h]ere, the hearing officer Anita Clinton Craig solely authored a decision which affirmed the position of the agency, PERS, that her employer, the Attorney General of Mississippi, represents as statutory legal counsel. She claims this is violative of a rule of law stated previously by this Court. This Court has stated that [a]dministrative proceedings should be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any suspicion of prejudice or unfairness. Dean v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 797 So.2d 830, 837 (Miss.2000) (citing McFadden v. Miss. State Bd. of Med. Licensure, 735 So.2d.145, 158 (Miss.1999)). No evidence exists to substantiate Stamps's inference of having been afforded a hearing that was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any suspicion of prejudice or unfairness. Id. ¶ 50. The presumption exists that hearing officers act with fairness and honesty. Harrison County Sch. Bd. v. Morreale, 538 So.2d 1196, 1202 (Miss.1989). Furthermore, in order to overcome this presumption, there must be a showing of personal or financial interest on the part of the hearing officer, or evidence of misconduct. Dampier v. Lawrence County Sch. Dist., 344 So.2d 130, 132-33 (Miss.1977). Stamps does not even attempt to address or overcome this presumption. Even so, this Court has plainly ruled that administrative agencies are capable of performing multiple functions. This Court has stated [t]his Court has rejected the proposition that administrative agencies cannot perform both investigative and adjudicative functions. Freeman, 822 So.2d at 281 (citing McFadden v. Miss. Bd. of Med. Licensure, 735 So.2d at 158). The combination in the same individual of ... nonadjudicative functions does not violate due process, provided the claimant's due process rights to a fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator are otherwise protected. Id. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Craig was not impartial. This Court has also stated, in reference to an assistant attorney general being a hearing officer, [t]hat office affords counsel to state agencies and we see no conflict or suggestion of unfairness in this arrangement. United Cement Co., 558 So.2d at 842 (citing Frazier v. State ex rel. Pittman, 504 So.2d 675, 691 (Miss.1987); Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 418 So.2d at 784). Therefore, Stamps's claim is without merit.