Jones v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare

• Citation: 354 S.W.2d 37
• Decision Date: 05 February 1962
• Docket Number: No. 23539,23539
• Parties: Mary B. JONES, Claimant, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Page 37

354 S.W.2d 37

Mary B. JONES, Claimant, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant.

No. 23539.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 5, 1962.

Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Gilbert D. Stephenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Robert Devoy, Brookfield, for respondent.

CROSS, Judge.

Prior to December 11, 1959, respondent Mary B. Jones (hereinafter called Claimant), received aid to dependent children as provided by Section 208.040, V.A.M.S., and as administered by the State Department of Public Health and Welfare, on the basis that her husband was physically and mentally incapacitated. On the named date she was removed from the roll of aid recipients by a decision of the department based on its findings that her husband, Dewey Jones, was not physically or mentally incapacitated from performing gainful work--a procedure permitted by Section 208.040 V.A.M.S. Claimant appealed from that decision to the director of the department under the provision of Section 208.080 V.A.M.S. After a hearing the director determined that claimant's husband was not mentally or physically incapacitated for work and that, therefore, she was ineligible to receive dependent aid benefits for her children.

Upon appeal to the circuit court by claimant, that court found that the director's decision was not based on substantial evidence and was, therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable, and ordered that the decision be set aside and that the case be remanded to the director for re-determination. From that judgment the department has appealed.

It is suggested by the Attorney General, appearing on behalf of appellant, that exclusive jurisdiction of this appeal is in the Supreme Court under Article V, Section 3 of the 1945 Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S., because the director is a state officer and is a party to this proceeding. The suggestion has no merit. White v. State Social Security Commission, 345 Mo. 1046, 137 S.W.2d 569.

The proceeding affects three children born to claimant's marriage with Dewey Jones. They are five, ten and twelve years of age and live at home with their parents. Other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence are substantially as follows:

Dewey Jones is 61 years old. Prior to 1955 he lived an active life and had been variously employed as a school teacher, a bridge carpenter, plumber's helper and farm worker. In 1955 he had an operation for removal of a malignant tumor on his jaw. He received twelve X-ray treatments for the tumor before the operation and four additional such treatments afterward. At the date of the hearing he was a patient at the Ellis Fischel Hospital at Columbia.

Claimant testified that since the tumor operation her husband has been abnormal in that he had become nervous, took dizzy spells and couldn't think for himself--that he is 'more like one of her children' and depends on her for everything. Mr. Jones testified that since the operation he suffered headaches, dizziness, back pains, defective hearing, defective vision, prostate trouble and loss of memory; that he has attempted to work but was physically and mentally unable to do so. Irvin Thomas, a carpenter, testified on claimant's behalf that he had hired Mr. Jones as a helper but that Jones was unable to perform the duties assigned him; that although he made an honest effort to work he could not do it. Ethel Neff, a neighbor, testified on behalf of claimant that she had on occasions hired Mr. Jones as a helper. She stated that for the past year he is so forgetful you can't depend on him; that 'he couldn't understand what was to be done or anything about it', and that he couldn't get up on a ladder because it made him dizzy.

Dr. John R. Dixon, a medical doctor, testified on behalf of claimant that in his opinion Dewey Jones was not able to carry out gainful employment. Based on a general physical examination, Dr. Dixon diagnosed that Jones was suffering from Horner's syndrome (left side), pre-senile mental change with memory defects, osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine and chronic prostatitis. Dr. Dixon stated: 'As you recall, I mentioned he had twelve deep therapy treatments on that left parotid area in the summer of 1955, followed by four more. I can't quite conceive of that much irradiation being given. * * * there are other structures in that vicinity besides the parotid gland, mainly nerve tissues of the brain, and I can't help but feel that certain changes instant to that irradiation has contributed a great deal to his mental condition as it exists today'.

Two witnesses testified on behalf of the department--an osteopathic doctor and a welfare case-worker. The former, Dr. Ryals, examined Mr. Jones three months before the hearing at the request of the county welfare office. The extent of that examination was not stated except that 'I felt it was adequate to satisfy the needs that were called upon at that time'. Dr. Ryals testified that Jones was capable of performing work. He stated, 'If I had known this was coming up I can assure you I would have requested every type of examination, * * * and I might make myself clear now, that it was just my humble opinion at the time I examined this gentleman that on that specific day he was able to do his job as stated in the application'. The welfare case-worker, Jesse Wheeler, testified that Mr. Jones 'seems to accept what is said to him and he understands it'.

Our first duty, as prescribed by the statutes governing appeals of this nature, is to determine 'whether or not a fair hearing has been granted the applicant'. Section 208.110, V.A.M.S.; Section 208.100, V.A.M.S. (Section 208.110 provides that appeals from the circuit court shall be in the same manner as provided by Section 208.100 for appeals from the director to the circuit court). Section 208.100 further provides: 'If the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by said director, or that his decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, the court in such event shall remand the proceedings for redetermination of the issues by said director'.

Appellant recognizes our incumbent duty to determine whether claimant had a fair hearing by joining in that issue. It is urged in appellant's brief that claimant was afforded a fair hearing because the record shows her presence at the hearing, with counsel, and that she was given full opportunity to testify, introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Even so, it does not necessarily follow that she was accorded other additional rights inherent in the basic concept of due process.

'Fair hearing' is defined in 35 C.J.S., page 598, as 'One in which authority is fairly exercised, that is, consistently with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law'. An administrative proceeding will not be considered a 'fair hearing' if it lacks the rudimentary elements of 'fair play' embraced within the requirements of due process. Ritch v. Director of Vehicles & Traffic, D.C.Mun.App., 124 A.2d 301. It cannot be said that there has been a 'fair hearing' if practices are indulged in or the hearing is conducted in a manner leading to the conclusion that a denial of justice may have resulted. United States ex rel. Dean, etc. v. Reynolds, D.C.Ind., 2 F.Supp. 290. A 'fair hearing', as used in a statute providing that an unemployment compensation claimant shall be afforded an opportunity for a fair hearing is synonymous with 'a fair and impartial trial' and requires a reasonable and substantial compliance with the principle of due process of law. King v. Brown, La.App., ...