Chapman v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 29 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 36153,36153
• Citation: 528 S.W.2d 462
• Parties: Kevin M. CHAPMAN, Adm. of Estate of James E. Chapman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James L. SANDERS et al., Defendants-Respondents. . Louis District, Division One
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 462

528 S.W.2d 462

Kevin M. CHAPMAN, Adm. of Estate of James E. Chapman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James L. SANDERS et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 36153.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

July 29, 1975.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied Sept. 8, 1975.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 10, 1975.

Kappel, Neill, Staed & Wolff, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, Eugene P. Freeman, Assoc. City Counselor, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

WEIER, Presiding Judge.

This case arises on appeal from a judgment by the Circuit Court of St. Louis, affirming a decision of the Board of Trustees of The Alternate Police Retirement System of St. Louis, which denied plaintiff's application for accidental disability retirement (§ 86.263, RSMo. 1969). We find the circuit court's judgment free of error.

Plaintiff, James E. Chapman, ¹ was a member of the St. Louis Police Department from 1932 until 1971. During his thirty-eight and one-half years of service, the plaintiff incurred back and neck injuries of varying degrees of severity. The injuries stemmed from a myriad of incidents, including on and off duty automobile accidents and falls suffered in the performance of police duties. In February of 1970, surgery was performed in an effort to correct plaintiff's disabling physical condition of osteoarthritis, which, in the opinion of his doctors, had been aggravated by plaintiff's many accidents throughout the years. The operation, however, left the plaintiff extensively paralyzed, described as acute quadriplegia.

Plaintiff applied for accidental disability retirement on March 11, 1971. While the accidental disability application was still pending, plaintiff applied for and was granted regular service retirement on June 1, 1971. ² On April 21, 1972 a hearing on the accidental disability application was held in which the plaintiff testified and the parties stipulated to the introduction of his entire medical history by documentary evidence. Also included by stipulation were official police reports of eight instances of accidents involving injuries to the plaintiff, the first occurring in 1940 and the most recent injury taking place in 1967. The doctors who examined the plaintiff agreed his numerous injuries aggravated his osteoarthritis to the disabling stage. The Board determined that none of the accidents subsequent to 1955 could have medically resulted in plaintiff's total and permanent incapacity, and thus plaintiff's application for service connected accidental disability retirement was filed beyond the permissible time under § 86.263, RSMo. 1969. Plaintiff petitioned the circuit court for a review of the Board's decision. On this review he suffered an adverse judgment.

Although the circuit court upheld the Board's decision in denying plaintiff's application, the court arrived at the same result for different reasons. The court found plaintiff's disabling condition was brought about as a result of his many traumatic episodes over an extended period of time aggravating the underlying condition of arthritis. The court construed the term 'accident', as used in § 86.263, as not including a series of 'many traumatic events', thus not extending the section's coverage to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts this variance between the Board's basis for decision and that of the court's constitutes error. We disagree. It may be said without question that the scope of judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies is generally limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by 'competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record'. § 536.140(2), RSMo. 1969. However, if there is no factual question involved, but rather a question of law or application of the law to the facts, the court may proceed to determine the matter by applying the law in light of the facts. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 802(1) (Mo.1973).

Since there is no dispute on the occurrences of the duty-connected accidents themselves, nor on the medical evidence relating to plaintiff's need for the surgery and his total incapacitating physical condition subsequent to the 1970 operation, the only issue on this appeal is whether the circuit court correctly interpreted the applicable statute. § 86.263 provides:

'Upon application by the member or the board of police commissioners any member who has become totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place through no negligence on his part, and if such accident occurred not more than five years prior to date of application unless the accident was reported and an examination made of the member by the medical staff of the board of police commissioners within five years of the date of the accident with subsequent examinations made as requested, shall be retired by the board of trustees provided that the medical board shall certify that such member is mentally or physically incapacitated for further performance of duty, that such incapacity is likely to be permanent and that such member should be retired; provided that if the accident occurred prior to the age and year set out in section 86.250, application for benefits must be made before such date except that the interval between date of accident and of application may be at least six months.'

Essentially the section can be broken into five necessary elements...