Public Employees' Retirement System v. Gladys Winston
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CC-00641-COA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
APPELLANT
v.
GLADYS WINSTON
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
2/20/2004
HON. WINSTON L. KIDD
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: MARY MARGARET BOWERS
R. LOUIS FIELD
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
REVERSED ORDER OF THE PERS BOARD AND
GRANTED DISABILITY BENEFITS TO
APPELLEE.
AFFIRMED - 05/24/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
Gladys Winston was employed by the Warren County School District as a teacher for fourteen and
one-half years. Winston experienced back pain, knee pain, and degenerative disc disease, all of which she
claimed prevented her from working. Winston also suffered from other medical problems, such as
diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, and, in 2000, she was diagnosed with Bell’s Palsy.
¶2.
Winston terminated her employment effective December 22, 2000. Winston’s application for
disability benefits was filed on November 30, 2000. After the Medical Review Board considered her
application, it twice deferred its decision pending a functional capacity evaluation of Winston. The Medical
Review Board postponed its decision again in September 2001, pending an independent medical
examination. In November 2001, the Board reviewed Winston’s application, documentation and
independent medical examination, and denied her claim. Upon reviewing additional medical evidence
received on March 11, 2002, the Board again denied Winston’s claim.
¶3.
Winston then appealed. After a hearing on April 8, 2002, the Disability Appeals Committee denied
benefits to Winston. On June 18, 2002, the PERS Board of Trustees adopted the findings of the Disability
Appeals Committee and denied Winston’s disability claim. Winston then appealed to the Hinds County
Circuit Court. The trial judge reversed the Board’s decision and granted Winston disability benefits. PERS
now appeals asserting that the trial judge erred in reweighing the evidence by finding the order of the Board
denying Winston’s claim arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
The scope of review of actions by administrative agencies is well established. According to Rule
5.03 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, it is the duty of the reviewing court to ascertain
whether the Board’s decision (1) was supported by substantial evidence; (2) was arbitrary or capricious;
(3) was beyond the power of the lower authority to make; or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional
right of the complaining party. See also Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Dearman, 846 So. 2d 1014, 1018
(¶13) (Miss. 2003); Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Dishmon, 797 So. 2d 888, 891 (¶8) (Miss. 2001).
The applicant for disability income bears the burden of proving that he or she is actually disabled.
2
Dishmon, 797 So. 2d at (¶15). There is a rebuttable presumption in favor of a PERS ruling. Brinston v.
Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 706 So. 2d 258 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
DISCUSSION
I. WAS THE BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
¶5.
In its only issue, PERS states that the evidence supporting the decision of the Board is substantial
and, therefore, neither arbitrary nor capricious. PERS argues that the record supports the Board’s
decision. Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Delta CMI v. Speck, 586 So. 2d 768, 769 (Miss. 1991).
¶6.
The lower court found that Winston had presented substantial evidence that her medical condition
precluded her from performing the usual duties of her employment and that the Board’s finding that she was
not disabled was arbitrary and capricious. We agree for the following reasons. The evidence in this case
was based on medical opinions from four different doctors, three of whom saw Winston on more than
once occasion. Dr. Thomas Sligh examined Winston on at least three occasions wherein he noted her
various medical problems, including diabetes and back problems. In a letter dated January 7, 2002,
addressed to PERS, Dr. Sligh stated that “[w]ith her [Winston] multiple medical problems, I really believe
she is totally disabled.”
¶7.
Dr. Gloria Butler, who had been seeing Winston since 1995, in a PERS form, noted that Winston
had developed “persistent low back pain and significant restriction of lower extremity movement due to
pain.” Dr. Butler also noted that Winston had not responded to either treatment or therapy for her back
problems. In this same form, Dr. Butler further stated that she considered Winston’s disability permanent.
3
Also, in a letter dated April 6, 2001, Dr. Butler stated that Winston was “unable to do her work as a
teacher.”
¶8.
Dr. Robert McGuire, Professor and Vice-Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
and Rehabilitation at University Orthopaedic Associates, found that Winston suffered from lumbar disc
disease. In a letter dated March 26, 2001, Dr. McGuire found that “[s]he must change positions frequently
from sitting, standing to walking. She will not be able to sit or stand in one position for any period greater
than thirty minutes at a time.” After examining Winston on February 16, 2001, Dr. McGuire noted that
Winston had “applied for her disability which I feel is appropriate due to the inability to sit, stand or walk
for any period of time.”
¶9.
The fourth doctor, Dr. David Collipp, performed an independent medical evaluation on Winston
as requested by PERS. Dr. Collipp evaluated Winston one time for thirty-five minutes. Dr. Collipp
determined that Winston was attempting to deceive him and further determined that she was able to
perform light duty work as her job required.
¶10.
Other testimony at the hearing included Rick Tillotson, the principal at the school where Winston
was employed. Tillotson noted that a new teaching plan recently adopted by the school required an
increased level of physical interaction with the students and that Winston was unable to perform as
required. Tillotson specifically stated, “As a kindergarten teacher she is not able to move about the room
as the job requires.” Although Tillotson stated that he attempted to accommodate Winston, her back pain
ultimately prevented her from continuing with teaching.
¶11.
We find that Winston presented substantial evidence of her disability and PERS cannot arbitrarily
deny disability benefits when presented with such evidence. We affirm the decision of the lower court.
4
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
