A Mississippi court has reversed a decision denying disability benefits to Janet Scitzs, a former employee of the Department of Child Protection Services. The Court of Appeals found that the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) violated Scitzs's due process rights by holding a hearing without notifying her. This ruling, issued on November 10, 2026, impacts Scitzs and potentially others who may face similar issues with their disability claims.

Scitzs had applied for both duty-related and non-duty-related disability retirement benefits after injuring her back in 2020. The PERS Medical Board initially denied her claim, citing insufficient medical evidence to support her disability. When Scitzs appealed, the Hinds County Circuit Court upheld the denial, leading her to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The case revolves around whether PERS provided adequate notice of the hearing where Scitzs's appeal was considered. Scitzs argued that she was not informed about the hearing, which resulted in her absence during the proceedings. The Appeals Committee proceeded without her, relying solely on medical records and testimony from others, which Scitzs contended violated her constitutional rights.

In its ruling, the court highlighted that administrative agencies must provide minimal due process, which includes proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court found that PERS failed to demonstrate that Scitzs was notified of the hearing, stating, "The record is devoid of anything that indicates that Scitzs was notified of her hearing." This lack of notice constituted a violation of her due process rights.

The court ruled, "We find that PERS denied [Scitzs] the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way." As a result, the court reversed the decisions made by the circuit court and PERS, remanding the case back to the PERS Disability Appeals Committee for a new hearing regarding Scitzs's claims.

This ruling is significant as it emphasizes the importance of due process in administrative hearings, particularly in cases involving disability benefits. It sets a precedent that could impact how PERS and similar agencies handle notifications and hearings in the future. Individuals applying for disability benefits can expect that their rights to be informed and to participate in hearings will be upheld.

The outcome of this case may also encourage other claimants who feel their due process rights have been violated to appeal their cases. It reinforces the necessity for agencies to maintain clear communication and follow proper procedures when handling disability claims.

Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how PERS will conduct the new hearing for Scitzs and whether they will take additional steps to ensure compliance with due process standards. There is also the possibility that PERS may seek to appeal this ruling, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.

As the case moves forward, it serves as a reminder of the critical balance between administrative efficiency and the rights of individuals seeking benefits. The court's decision underscores the need for transparency and fairness in the administrative process.