Dean v. Public Emp. Retirement Sys

17 Citing cases

  1. Freeman v. Public Employees' Retirement System

    822 So. 2d 274 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 13 times

    ¶ 21. "Administrative proceedings should be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any suspicion of prejudice or unfairness." Dean v. PERS, 797 So.2d 830, 837 (Miss. 2000) (citing McFadden v. Mississippi Bd. of Med. Licensure, 735 So.2d 145, 158 (Miss. 1999)).

  2. Flowers v. P.E.R.S

    952 So. 2d 972 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    In Flowers v. Public Employees' Retirement System, 952 So.2d 972, 980 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006), we recognized that "part of the benefit of having physicians on the Disability Appeals Committee is so that they can analyze the medical claims.

    ¶ 8. On April 20, 1999, this Court issued its initial opinions regarding Flowers' claim and in two other closely related appeals from the Public Employees' Retirement System. Flowers v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 748 So.2d 178 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (op. on reh.); Burns v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 748 So.2d 181 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (op. on reh.); and Dean v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 98-CC-00033-COA (Miss.Ct.App. Apr. 20, 1999), rev'd 797 So.2d 830 (Miss. 2000). All three addressed whether two doctors who were members of the Medical Review Board at PERS should personally exam a claimant, have their examinations used as evidence, then vote on the Board's decision of whether a disability existed.

  3. Flowers v. Public Employees

    2005 CC 198 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)

    ¶ 8. On April 20, 1999, this Court issued its initial opinions regarding Flowers' claim and in two other closely related appeals from the Public Employees' Retirement System. Flowers v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 748 So. 2d 178 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (op. on reh.); Burns v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 748 So. 2d 181 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (op. on reh.); and Dean v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 98-CC-00033-COA (Miss.Ct.App. Apr. 20, 1999), rev'd 797 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 2000). All three addressed whether two doctors who were members of the Medical Review Board at PERS should personally exam a claimant, have their examinations used as evidence, then vote on the Board's decision of whether a disability existed.

  4. Public Employees' Retirement System v. Smith

    880 So. 2d 348 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 10 times
    Finding substantial evidence supported PERS's finding that the claimant's disability was not the direct result of his work-related accident because he had a significant history of multiple back injuries, accidents, and medical treatments

    In a series of cases, this Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court found that it was error for a member of the Medical Board to sit on the Appeals Committee. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Dishmon, 797 So.2d 888 (Miss. 2001); Byrd v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 774 So.2d 434 (Miss. 2000); Dean v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 797 So.2d 830 (Miss. 2000); Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Allen, 834 So.2d 50 (Miss.Ct.App. 2002); Flowers v. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. 748 So.2d 178 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). The present case does not involve the same situation, but does involve the same Dr. Winkelmann and casts serious doubts as to the integrity of the process by which PERS reviews its disability claims.

  5. Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging

    874 So. 2d 456 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 9 times

    At the most basic, an administrative agency may have a combination of powers that look like those of each of the three branches of government: enforcement power that is similar to that of the executive branch, rule-making authority that is quasi-legislative in nature, and dispute resolution jurisdiction like that of the judiciary. Courts err when they insist on agency procedures modeling themselves on the traditional view of the separation of powers. See,Dean v. Public Employee Retirement System, 98-CA-0033-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 1999), rev'd 797 So.2d 830, 837 (Miss. 2000) (Supreme Court held that agency could merge investigatory and adjudicatory functions on claims so long as consistent with statute); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (agency adjudicators may properly have earlier participated in an investigation).

  6. Pub. Employees' Retir. Sys v. Allen

    834 So. 2d 50 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 13 times

    Allowing Dr. Winkelmann, an original member of the Medical Review Board who denied Allen's claim, to sit on her appeal of the Board's denial is blatant reversible error. See Public Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Dishmon, 797 So.2d 888, 890 (¶ 2) (Miss. 2002) (a factually similar case reversed for the same Dr. Winkelmann's sitting on both the Board and Commission); Dean v. Public Employees' Retirement Sys., 797 So.2d 830, 836 (¶ 26) (Miss. 2000); Byrd v. Public Employees' Retirement Sys., 774 So.2d 434, 440-41 (¶ 30-33) (Miss. 2000); Flowers v. Public Employees' Retirement Sys., 748 So.2d 178, 180 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

  7. Ford v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-178-SA-SAA (N.D. Miss. Aug. 24, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect private citizens from actions of other private citizens; the Due Process Clause only acts to protect private citizens against state actors. Deshaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 489, U.S. 189, 196, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989); Jones v. City of Jackson, 203 F.3d 875, 880 (5th Cir. 2000); Dean v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 797 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 2000).

  8. Rankin Cnty. v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    No. 2022-UR-00803-SCT (Miss. Sep. 26, 2024)

    Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Dean v. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 797 So.2d 830, 837 (Miss. 2000)).

  9. AT&T Corp. v. Miss. Dep't of Info. Tech.

    298 So. 3d 938 (Miss. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    [w]e reserve the right to consider an issue that was not raised before an administrative agency where ... the facts are undisputed and the issue is one that would allow an erroneous application of a statute, and where failure to address such issue will result in a possible deprivation of substantive rights. Dean v. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. , 797 So. 2d 830, 837 (Miss. 2000). In Dean , this Court found that the Public Employees’ Retirement System had violated its governing statutes by allowing members of the Medical Board to sit as hearing officers in review of the Medical Board, an argument that was not raised until the appeal to circuit court.

  10. Hood v. State

    958 So. 2d 790 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Freeman v. PERS, 822 So.2d 274, 281 (Miss. 2002); Dean v. PERS, 797 So.2d 830, 833 (Miss. 2000); Johnson v. Memorial Hosp., 732 So.2d 864, 866 (Miss. 1998); Scott v. Flynt, 704 So.2d 998, 1007 (Miss. 1996); Kron v. Van Cleave, 339 So.2d 559, 563 (Miss.