Legal Opinion · Dissent

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Comardelle

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided March 24, 2015No. 2013-SA-01462-COAPublished

1DissentCarlton, J.

¶21. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision because I would affirm the circuit court’s finding that the denial of duty-related retirement disability benefits was not based upon substantial evidence. Like the circuit court, I find that PERS’s denial of Comardelle’s benefits was arbitrary and lacked support by substantial credible evidence. I also respectfully submit that PERS’s decision was based upon speculation.

¶ 22. “Employees of the State of Mississippi are eligible for regular disability benefits and duty-related benefits.” Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Trulove, 954 So.2d 501,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. PERC v. MarquezMississippi Supreme Court · 2000
  2. PERS v. DearmanMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
  3. PERS v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2001
  4. Public Employees' Retirement System v. TruloveCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2007
  5. Henley v. Public Employees' Retirement System of MississippiCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2010

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API