Andstrom v. Willmar Regional Treatment Center
| Decision Date | 15 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-93-1388,C0-93-1388 |
| Citation | 512 N.W.2d 117 |
| Parties | Robert B. ANDSTROM, Relator, v. WILLMAR REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER, Commissioner of Jobs and Training, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
An adjudication of chemical dependency for commitment purposes does not toll the limitations period for filing an appeal from the denial of a claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
Charles A. Krekelberg, Williams, Nitz, Krekelberg, Sorkness & Seeger, Pelican Rapids, for relator.
Willmar Regional Treatment Center, pro se.
Kent E. Todd, St. Paul, for Com'r of Jobs and Training.
Considered and decided by ANDERSON, C.J., and KLAPHAKE and PETERSON, JJ.
A Commissioner's representative determined relator Robert B. Andstrom's appeal from the Department of Jobs and Training's denial of his claim for unemployment benefits was untimely. Claiming his adjudication as chemically dependent tolled the applicable limitations period, Andstrom filed a certiorari appeal, seeking review of the Commissioner's representative's decision. We affirm.
Relator Robert B. Andstrom resigned from his employment with respondent Willmar Regional Treatment Center on December 1, 1992. On December 12, 1992, he was admitted to Lake Region Hospital with acute delirium tremens resulting from alcoholism. Following a hearing on December 17, 1992, the district court adjudicated Andstrom chemically dependent and ordered him involuntarily committed for treatment.
On December 19, 1992, the Department of Jobs and Training denied Andstrom's claim for unemployment benefits. The same day, the Department mailed the decision to Andstrom's last-known address.
Andstrom remained at the treatment center until about February 11, 1993. On February 11, 1993, he filed an appeal from the Department's December 19, 1992 decision. Following an evidentiary hearing, a Department referee dismissed Andstrom's appeal as untimely. The Commissioner's representative affirmed the referee's decision.
Did Andstrom's adjudication as chemically dependent toll the limitations period for filing an appeal from the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits?
Minn.Stat. Sec. 268.10, subd. 2(3) (1992) provides:
A determination issued pursuant to clauses (1) and (2) [] shall be final unless an appeal therefrom is filed by a claimant or employer within 15 days after the mailing of the notice of the determination to the last known address.
The time limit for appealing from a Department determination "is jurisdictional and must be strictly construed." Management Five, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training, 485 N.W.2d 323, 324 (Minn.App.1992).
There is no provision for extension or exceptions to the 15 day appeal period. The statutory time for an appeal from a department determination is absolute.
Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn.App.1984).
It is undisputed that notice of the denial of Andstrom's claim for unemployment benefits was mailed to Andstrom's last-known address. See Management Five, 485 N.W.2d at 324 (). Andstrom argues that the limitations period should be tolled because the adjudication of chemical dependency for purposes of commitment was a determination of legal incompetency.
The district court's decision to commit Andstrom included a determination that Andstrom was not capable of managing his own affairs. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.02, subd. 2 (1992) (). The commitment decision, however, was not a determination of legal incompetency.
The decision to commit a person is distinct from the determination that a person is legally incompetent.
[N]o person by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bode v. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, C1-98-2200
...on an incurable jurisdictional defect, but not necessarily subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, in Andstrom v. Willmar Regional Treatment Ctr., 512 N.W.2d 117 (Minn.App.1994) we held that a time limitation for appealing an agency decision "is jurisdictional and is to be strictly constr......
-
Elbert v. Tlam
...on an incurable jurisdictional defect, but not necessarily subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, in Andstrom v. Willmar Regional Treatment Ctr., 512 N.W.2d 117 (Minn.App.1994) we held that a time limitation for appealing an agency decision “is jurisdictional and is to be strictly constr......
-
Elbert v. Tlam
...on an incurable jurisdictional defect, but not necessarily subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, in Andstrom v. Willmar Regional Treatment Ctr., 512 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. App. 1994) we held that a time limitation for appealing an agency decision "is jurisdictional and is to be strictly cons......
-
King v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, No. A03-758 (Minn. App. 1/13/2004), No. A03-758.
...dependency treatment, this court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal. See, e.g., Andstrom v. Willmar Reg'l Treatment Ctr., 512 N.W.2d 117, 118 (Minn. App. 1994); Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan, 354 N.W.2d 569, 570-71 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 198......