Lynn Laughlin v. The Public Employees' Retirement System
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-SA-00341-COA
LYNN LAUGHLIN
APPELLANT
v.
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM
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:
APPELLEE
07/31/2007
HON. TOMIE T. GREEN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE S. LUTER
MARY MARGARET BOWERS
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM DENYING LAUGHLIN’S
APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY
BENEFITS
AFFIRMED – 06/02/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND BARNES, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Lynn Laughlin filed an application for disability benefits with the Public Employees’
Retirement System (PERS). The PERS Medical Board (Medical Board) denied Laughlin’s
request for benefits after concluding that she was not permanently disabled. Laughlin
appealed to the Disability Appeals Committee (Committee), which recommended to the
PERS Board of Trustees that the benefits be denied. The Board of Trustees agreed with the
recommendation. Laughlin then appealed to the Hinds County Circuit Court, which affirmed
the decision of the Board of Trustees. Aggrieved, Laughlin appeals and asserts: (1) that the
circuit court erred in finding that PERS’s decision to deny her benefits is supported by
substantial evidence and (2) that her due process rights to a fair hearing were violated.
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3.
On April 11, 2003, Laughlin filed an application for non-duty related disability
benefits. Thereafter, on April 22, 2003, she resigned from her position with the Calhoun
County Public School System after working for over ten years as a teacher. The Medical
Board first reviewed Laughlin’s case on August 28, 2003. A PERS disability benefit analyst
requested that Dr. David Collipp, a former member of the Medical Board,1 perform an
independent medical examination of Laughlin.
¶4.
Dr. Collipp examined Laughlin on October 7, 2003. He noted that Laughlin had
undergone neck surgery sixteen years earlier and had undergone followup neck surgery in
1999. Dr. Collipp also noted that Laughlin had had a second surgery in 1999. Additionally,
Dr. Collipp stated that Laughlin was evaluated for bursitis of her left hip and that she
complained of neck, low back, left hip, right hand, and right arm pain.
¶5.
Dr. Collipp’s physical examination revealed that Laughlin had no abnormal pain
behaviors or pain magnification. He concluded that Laughlin had normal tone and motor
power for her bilateral upper and lower limbs, as well as normal bilateral upper and lower
limb ranges of motion, which included her shoulders, elbows, wrists, digits, hips, knees, and
1
Dr. Collipp ceased being a member of the Medical Board in May 2003.
2
ankles. Dr. Collipp also noted that Laughlin had a decreased cervical range of motion. Dr.
Collipp also made the following notation: “[n]ormal gross mental status examination is
demonstrated, with some passive-aggressive, and narcissistic personality traits noted.”
Finally, Dr. Collipp concluded that Laughlin is capable of performing the work described in
her job description.
¶6.
Thereafter, on November 3, 2003, the Medical Board denied Laughlin’s request for
disability benefits, finding that “there was insufficient objective evidence to support the claim
that [her] medical condition prevents [her] from performing [her] duties as described as a
[t]eacher.” Laughlin then appealed to the Committee on December 29, 2003, and PERS’s
executive director, Frank Ready, set a hearing for January 24, 2004. Laughlin’s attorney
promptly requested a continuance. He asked that the hearing be postponed until April.
Ready granted Laughlin’s request for a continuance; however, he declined to set the hearing
for April, setting it instead for February 20, 2004. Again, Laughlin’s attorney requested that
the hearing be scheduled for a later date, arguing that he had not had sufficient time to
determine if Laughlin’s medical files were complete. Ready denied Laughlin’s attorney’s
request and noted that Laughlin’s attorney would have had sufficient time to review
Laughlin’s medical records by the February 20 hearing date.
¶7.
At the beginning of the hearing on February 20, the parties introduced a composite
exhibit consisting of Laughlin’s medical file, membership file, and the PERS staff data sheet.
The medical file contained the statement and medical records of the following additional
physicians who had examined or treated Laughlin: Drs. R. Franklin Adams, O. Lynn
Hamblin, Edward R. Field, and R.A. McGuire. Laughlin’s admission and discharge records
3
from Baptist Memorial Hospital for June 18, 2003, July 12 and 23, 1999, and September 20,
1999, were also included in the medical file.
¶8.
Dr. Adams, a rheumatologist, noted that Laughlin’s principle diagnosis was scoliosis
and spondylosis and her secondary diagnosis was fibromyalgia. Dr. Adams also noted that
Laughlin’s “disability is manifest mainly by [the] level of pain.” However, on the “Statement
of Examining Physician” form that Dr. Adams completed, he did not indicate that Laughlin
suffered any permanent partial impairments, nor did he indicate whether she had reached
maximum medical improvement. Also, Dr. Adams did not list any restrictions on the form
where such restrictions were called for. After a thorough review of Dr. Adams’s medical
records, we did not find any suggestion by Dr. Adams that Laughlin, despite experiencing
severe pain, was permanently disabled. Dr. Hamblin declined to make a determination as to
whether Laughlin was disabled because she concluded that she was not qualified to do so.
On the other hand, Dr. Field, who completed his “Statement of Examining Physician” form
on May 5, 2003, stated that he had seen Laughlin thirteen times in the last year and noted that
she was at maximum medical improvement as of the date that he completed the form. Dr.
Field concluded that Laughlin’s principal diagnosis was left SI joint dysfunction, which he
opined was severe and that her secondary diagnosis was left pes bursitis, which he opined
was mild. However, he did not find that Laughlin suffered from any permanent partial
impairments, and as to restrictions, he stated the following: “self-limiting—pain reports with
prolonged standing, walking, and sitting; pain reported with squatting and bending.”
According to Dr. Field, Laughlin had a fair prognosis for recovery. Dr. McGuire, a back
specialist, noted that Laughlin’s principal diagnosis was mild bursitis and concluded that she
4
has a good prognosis for recovery. Dr. McGuire also concluded that Laughlin had reached
maximum medical recovery.
¶9.
During the hearing, Laughlin was examined by Drs. Joseph Blackston and Mark
Meeks, as well as by a hearing officer. Laughlin testified about her duties as a teacher and
the medical problems that she had experienced. She explained that she was employed as a
computer applications teacher and that she taught over a hundred students per day, about
twenty-one students per hour. Laughlin also testified that in addition to her classroom duties,
she was required to work “outside duty” for an hour each day and “ball game duties”
approximately three times a year.
¶10.
During her examination by Dr. Blackston, Laughlin stated that even though she
returned to work following her neck surgeries in 1999, she continued to have pain in her neck
and right shoulder. Laughlin also stated that she still experiences pain in her arms and
weakness in her right arm. Specifically, Laughlin testified that her right arm has been weaker
than her left arm since the surgery that she had approximately fifteen years earlier. Dr.
Blackston noted that Laughlin had been referred to Dr. Field, an orthopedic surgeon, by Dr.
Adams. Dr. Blackston pointed out that Dr. Field diagnosed Laughlin as having scoliosis and
referred her to Dr. McGuire. Laughlin testified that Dr. McGuire concluded that she had
developed chronic bursitis in her hip. According to Laughlin, Dr. McGuire suggested that
she wait seven months to see if the bursitis cleared up, but she stated that after seven months,
the bursitis remained. Laughlin also noted that she only saw Dr. McGuire on that one
occasion.
¶11.
Dr. Blackston asked Laughlin about a functional capacity examination (FCE), which
5
had been performed by David Brick, a licensed, registered occupational therapist. The
report, also prepared by Brick, reflects that Laughlin can perform “light medium work.” Dr.
Blackston then asked Laughlin to state what is the heaviest thing she might be required to lift
in a given work day. Laughlin responded that she often lifted boxes of computer paper,
CPUs, and on occassion, “two-hundred-pound students.” Dr. Blackston then pointed out that
according to the FCE, she could lift between twenty and twenty-five pounds. Laughlin then
stated that she tries not to exert herself in that manner and added that following the FCE she
could not get out of bed for two days. Laughlin testified that most of her problems are with
her hips, thighs, shoulder, neck, and arm.
¶12.
During her examination by Dr. Meeks, Laughlin stated that in December 2002, she
had experienced dizziness and pain to the point where she could no longer perform her duties
as a teacher. Laughlin further stated that she had been working on a part-time basis since the
spring of 2002, per Dr. Adams’s suggestion. Dr. Meeks directed Laughlin’s attention to Dr.
Field’s notes from February 14, 2003, following her FCE, wherein he noted that: “[The FCE]
showed essentially that she is a light to medium worker. Right now, she is not in school and
is much better. She states that she can’t handle the stress of that anymore. She may get a job
elsewhere.”
¶13.
During further questioning by Dr. Meeks, Laughlin described her pain and how that
pain is exacerbated by stressful situations. Laughlin explained that she was diagnosed with
fibromyalgia in 1999 but noted that Dr. Field does not believe that fibromyalgia exists.
Laughlin also noted that the fibromyalgia is secondary to the other problems that she suffers
from.
6
¶14.
In addition to the statements from Laughlin’s treating physicians, the Committee also
considered Laughlin’s principal’s statement that Laughlin cannot perform the job of a
teacher. The principal explained:
Teachers are required to constantly monitor students and their work. This
requires constant walking, standing and bending over. Long days are frequent
due to extra-curricular activities (7:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.). Fine manipulation
skills are constantly required of Ms. Laughlin due to her job as a teacher of
computer [classes]. The above dut[ies] are painful for Ms. Laughlin.
¶15.
Finally, the Committee also considered Brick’s findings that Laughlin met light-
medium work ranges during the evaluation and that this would meet or exceed the work
ranges required to be a teacher, leading to the ultimate conclusion that “[u]nless there is
anything else medically to offer, she could be released back to her full and regular work
duties.”
¶16.
Following the hearing, the Committee recommended to the Board of Trustees that
Laughlin’s request for disability benefits be denied, concluding that she is not permanently
disabled within the definition provided in sections 25-11-113 and 25-11-114 of the
Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp. 2008).
The Board of Trustees agreed with the
Committee’s recommendation, and the circuit court affirmed the Board of Trustees’ decision.
Laughlin now appeals.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
¶17.
An appellate court’s “review of an administrative agency’s findings and decisions is
limited: ‘an agency’s conclusions must remain undisturbed unless the agency’s order: (1) is
not supported by substantial evidence, (2) is arbitrary or capricious, (3) is beyond the scope
or power granted to the agency, or (4) violates one’s constitutional rights.’” Pub. Employees’
7
Ret. Sys. v. Howard, 905 So. 2d 1279, 1284 (¶13) (Miss. 2005) (quoting Pub. Employees’
Ret. Sys. v. Marquez, 774 So. 2d 421, 425 (¶11) (Miss. 2000)).
¶18.
Laughlin asserts two reasons for her contention that the circuit court erred in finding
substantial evidence to support PERS’s decision to deny her disability benefits. First, she
contends that she proved that she meets the statutory definition of disability, which is defined
in Mississippi Code Annotated section 25-11-113(1)(a) (Supp. 2008) as:
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.) that is actually offered and is within the
same general territorial work area, without material reduction in compensation.
...
¶19.
To support her contention, Laughlin argues that the testimonies of two of her former
colleagues, Diane Simon and Karen Owens, lend support to her contention that she is
disabled to the point that she can no longer perform the duties of a schoolteacher. Simon
taught with Laughlin during Laughlin’s final years and testified that she often observed that
Laughlin appeared to be “almost in constant pain.” Simon further testified that, as a result,
she and other teachers would often cover Laughlin’s “outside duty.” Owens testified that
Laughlin often complained about suffering from neck, shoulder, and hip pain.
¶20.
Second, Laughlin contends that the Committee erred in finding that “there is nothing
in the record from Dr. Adams that states Ms. Laughlin is medically disabled.” Laughlin
points out that Dr. Adams noted that her “disability is manifest mainly by [the] level of pain.”
Accordingly, Laughlin argues that the Committee improperly dismissed her complaints of
pain, concluding that it could not award her disability benefits because “[p]ain, unfortunately
8
cannot be measured objectively.” Laughlin contends that pain can rise to a level that
constitutes a disability and relies on Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1990) to
support her contention.
¶21.
Before we address the holding in Selders, we return briefly to a discussion of the
medical findings of Dr. Adams. Laughlin is correct that Dr. Adams stated that her “disability
is manifest mainly by [the] level of pain.” However, a proper assessment of Dr. Adams’s
medical findings requires that this statement not be considered in isolation. As noted, Dr.
Adams also did not indicate that Laughlin suffered any permanent partial impairment and did
not place any restrictions on her. It seems only logical that if Dr. Adams considered
Laughlin to be permanently disabled, he would have indicated that she suffered permanent
impairment and would have coupled that finding with permanent restrictions. Therefore, we
conclude that Dr. Adams was simply expressing an opinion regarding the level of pain that
Laughlin was experiencing, rather than expressing an opinion that she was disabled because
of the level of pain. We now return to our analysis of Selders.
¶22.
In Selders, Curtis Selders appealed from the district court’s decision in favor of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services which denied his application for Supplemental
Security Income benefits following an on-the-job accident. Id. at 616-17. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the decision of the administrative
law judge was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 616-18. The Selders court found as
follows:
Selders claims to have the non-exertional impairments of significantly
subaverage mental capacity, chronic pain, and anxiety. Pain may constitute a
non-exertional impairment that can limit the jobs a claimant would otherwise
9
be able to perform. There must be clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques
which show the existence of a medical impairment which could reasonably be
expected to produce the pain alleged. Pain constitutes a disabling condition
under the Social Security Act only when it is “constant, unremitting, and
wholly unresponsive to therapeutic treatment.” There was substantial evidence
here, however, from which the ALJ could conclude that Selders’[s] pain did
not limit his ability to perform light work. The various tests, x-rays, and
diagnoses repeatedly indicated that Selders had no significant orthopedic or
neurological problems . . . . There was no medical evidence to support chronic
pain of a nature that would limit Selders’[s] work abilities entirely, and several
of the doctors who examined him indicated that he could return to work and
resume normal activities.
Id. at 618-19 (internal citations omitted). We note at the outset that Selders is distinguishable
from our case, as Selders was seeking a determination of disability pursuant to the provisions
of the Social Security Act, not pursuant to the provisions of the Mississippi Public
Employees’ Retirement System. Nevertheless, we fail to see how Selders helps Laughlin’s
position. In fact, it appears that Laughlin and Selders are similarly situated. As was the case
with Selders, no doctor in Laughlin’s case concluded that the pain that she alleges to
experience prevents her from returning to work. As a matter of fact, the record reveals the
opposite, as Dr. Collipp concluded that Laughlin is capable of working, specifically as a
schoolteacher. Further, the FCE specifically indicates that Laughlin “could be released . .
. to her full and regular work duties,” unless there was something else to be offered
medically. Each of the physicians’ medical records indicate that Laughlin either had reached
maximum medical improvement or that the physicians had nothing else to offer her
medically.
¶23.
Before turning to Laughlin’s last issue, we think it is appropriate to mention two
opinions rendered by this Court: Stevison v. Public Employees’ Retirement System of
10
Mississippi, 966 So. 2d 874, 875 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) and Public Employees’
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Waid, 823 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
In each of these cases, on facts very similar to the facts in today’s case, we either reversed
or approved the circuit court’s reversal of PERS’s decision denying disability benefits to the
claimants. However, these cases are distinguishable from the case before us, as in each of
them a physician stated emphatically that the claimant was disabled. See Stevison, 966 So.
2d at 880 (¶19); Waid, 823 So. 2d at 598 (¶10). Unlike the physicians in Stevison and Waid,
all of the physicians in our case either offered no opinion regarding Laughlin’s disability or
concluded that she was not disabled.
¶24.
We now turn to Laughlin’s argument as it relates to her due process rights being
violated. It is well settled 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’ Retirement Sys., 797 So. 2d 830, 837 (¶27) (Miss. 2000) (citing McFadden v.
Miss. State Bd. of Med. Licensure, 735 So. 2d 145, 158 (¶53) (Miss. 1999)). Laughlin asserts
that her due process rights to a fair hearing were violated in two respects: (1) when her
request for a continuance was denied and (2) when a PERS employee was instructed, during
Laughlin’s hearing, not to answer questions regarding the number of independent
examinations that Dr. Collipp had performed for PERS in the previous year. We briefly
address both of Laughlin’s contentions.
¶25.
First, Laughlin asserts that Ready erred in denying her attorney’s request that the
hearing be scheduled for April because she did not have sufficient time to “ensure that all
medical records [were] obtained, that medical reports from treating or consultive physicians
11
that may [have been] helpful to the prosecution of her disability case be obtained, and that
lay opinions . . . that may be helpful to her case be obtained.” As noted, Laughlin appealed
PERS’s initial decision in December 2003, and Ready granted Laughlin’s attorney’s request
to postpone the hearing from January 26, the date the hearing was initially scheduled to be
heard, until February 20. We find no error with Ready’s decision, as there is nothing in the
record which suggests that Ready treated Laughlin unfairly or that she was prejudiced by his
decision to deny her a continuance. The record reflects that Laughlin had at least forty-two
days to gather documents in preparation for the hearing. The record further reflects that on
the day of the hearing, Laughlin did not indicate or suggest in any manner whatsoever that
she needed additional time or that there were pertinent medical records which she had not
been able to obtain. Therefore, we find no merit to this issue.
¶26.
Second, Laughlin claims that she was not afforded a fair hearing because Ready
instructed Sharon Roberts, a PERS employee, not to answer a question regarding the number
of independent medical examinations that Dr. Collipp had performed for PERS in the
previous year. On this point, the record reflects the following exchange between Roberts and
Laughlin’s attorney:
Q.
What was the date of the last time Dr. Collipp reviewed [a case]?
A.
Probably in April.
Q.
Of 2003?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, I assume Dr. Collipp got paid for his services on the medical
12
board?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Dr. Collipp, you would agree, has done in the past independent
medical examinations for the Retirement System?
A.
I would not -
Q.
I said in the past?
A.
In the past, but I would say in the last - since I’ve been an analyst, I
don’t believe he has because it would be a conflict of interest.
****
Q.
But it’s you[r] testimony that Dr. Collipp did not, in any manner,
review Ms. Laughlin’s claim.
A.
He did not.
Q.
Did you ever discuss it with Dr. Collipp whether or not he ever
reviewed it?
MS. BOWERS:
I’m going to object. She testified that Dr. Collipp was
not a member of the medical board. When her case was
reviewed, he was no longer reviewing any files with
PERS.
MR. LUTER:
I’ve got a right to ask a few questions with regard to this
case. If she says no, then that’s her answer, but I’ve got
a right to ask a few questions of her.
HEARING OFFICER:
I think she did answer that. He was no longer on
the medical board as of May of 2003.
13
MR. LUTER:
My question was, is she, herself, aware of whether of not
Dr. Collipp ever reviewed any of Ms. Laughlin’s file.
A.
I’m not aware that he did. Not to my knowledge.
Q.
Not to your knowledge. Now, in the past, let’s say year, how many
independent medical examinations has Dr. Collipp performed for the
Retirement System?
MR. READY:
Sharon, don’t answer that.
MR. LUTER:
I want the record to reflect that the Executive Director is
telling her not to answer.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR. LUTER:
I just want the record to reflect that the Executive
Director, Frank Ready, has directed her not to answer my
question about how many independent medical
examinations [Dr. Collipp] has performed for the
Retirement System this year, and that’s a public record,
and he’s directed her not to answer that question.
HEARING OFFICER:
¶27.
I think the record should reflect that she’s already
answered [that] she is not aware of any.
I think the record will reflect exactly what
happened. Anything else, Mr. Luter?
Laughlin fails to inform us how the answer to the question of how many independent
medical examinations Dr. Collipp had performed for PERS in the previous year would have
aided her in her quest to receive disability benefits. The critical point of concern is not that
Dr. Collipp performed a number of independent medical examinations for PERS but that he
did not sit on the Committee that reviewed Laughlin’s claim and Roberts attested to this
point. Thus, we fail to see how Ready’s instruction to Roberts denied Laughlin a fair and
14
impartial hearing. We find no merit to this issue.
¶28. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ.,
CONCUR. KING, C.J., AND BARNES, J., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
15
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.