Johnston v. Saladino Mech. & Cincinnati Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | WD 79512 |
| Citation | 504 S.W.3d 138 |
| Parties | William Scott JOHNSTON, Respondent, v. SALADINO MECHANICAL AND CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
504 S.W.3d 138
William Scott JOHNSTON, Respondent,
v.
SALADINO MECHANICAL AND CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
WD 79512
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Opinion filed: November 15, 2016
Jason Iezzi, for Respondent
Brian Boos, for Appellants
Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge
EDWARD R. ARDINI, JR., JUDGE
Saladino Mechanical and the Cincinnati Insurance Company appeal from an order denying their Petition for Stay of Execution relating to a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County pursuant to section 287.5001 in favor of William Scott
Johnston. Because we find that we lack the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we dismiss.
Factual and Procedural Background
William Scott Johnston ("Johnston") sustained an injury arising out of the course of his employment in Harrisonville, Missouri, on December 20, 2007. Johnston subsequently filed a claim with the Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation against his employer, Saladino Mechanical, and its insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company (collectively "Appellants"). Following a hearing before an administrative law judge, an award was entered on September 30, 2014, in favor of Johnston and directing the Appellants to pay him past and future medical expenses and permanent total disability benefits. The award of the administrative law judge was appealed to the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") which affirmed the administrative law judge's decision on May 28, 2015, in a final award that specifically recited that "[a]ny past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law." The final award of the Commission was not appealed.
The Appellants paid the principal sum due under the Commission's final award but refused, and continues to refuse, to pay any interest that Johnston claims is due and owing. Johnston, seeking a mechanism to enforce the Commission's final award and collect the interest he asserts is due to him, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cass County on August 17, 2015, to have the final award reduced to a judgment pursuant to section 287.500. A hearing on the petition was held on November 23, 2015,2 and the circuit court entered its judgment on December 28, 2015. No appeal of this judgment was taken and the record does not reflect any attempt by Johnston to formally execute on the judgment.
On January 6, 2016, Appellants filed a Petition for Stay of Execution of the judgment issued December 28, 2015, arguing that it was "void in that it [was] not sufficiently definite and certain such that it may be enforced by the Court without resorting to external proof or a further hearing." Suggestions in support and opposition were filed by the parties and a hearing held on the matter. The circuit court denied the Petition for Stay of Execution by order issued February 19, 2016. The February 19, 2016, order was denominated as an "Order" on the docket, titled as an "Order," and concluded with the phrase "it is so ordered." The Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on March 18, 2016, appealing the circuit court's order denying their Petition for Stay of Execution and attaching the same.3
Discussion
The crux of this case is the Appellants' contention that the judgment entered by
the circuit court is void and unenforceable on the grounds that it is "not sufficiently definite and certain" on the issue of interest owed to Johnston. The action brought by Johnston in the circuit court reduced the Commission's final award to a judgment for the purpose of compelling enforcement. See Roller v. Steelman, 297 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) ("Section 287.500 provides a means by which a final award can be enforced by the circuit court."); Brown v. Color Coating, Inc ., 867 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) ("[P]roceedings pursuant to § 287.500 merely provide a method for enforcement of the [worker's compensation] award."). The obligations imposed on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ.
...HSSU. Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction. Johnston v. Saladino Mech. , 504 S.W.3d 138, 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). The right to appeal is purely statutory, and therefore no right to appeal exists unless specifically delineated by s......
-
State ex rel. Peters v. Fitzpatrick
...Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Mo. banc 2003). The Award, on its face, was conclusive of the obligations of the Fund. Johnston, 504 S.W.3d at 140. The Award that Peters suffered a compensable work injury, that his employer was uninsured, and that his employer had paid none of his ......
-
Juvenile Officer v. D.L. (In re Interest of L.L.)
...authority, and thus the right to be brought, is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to hear." Johnston v. Saladino Mech. & Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 504 S.W.3d 138, 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ; see also Wunderlich v. Wunderlich , 505 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ("An appeal without stat......