Jones v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare

Decision Date05 February 1962
Docket NumberNo. 23539,23539
Citation354 S.W.2d 37
PartiesMary B. JONES, Claimant, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

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., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Campbell v. Cnty. Comm'n of Franklin Cnty.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 22 Julio 2014
    ...Garden Ave. Area Ass'n v. City of Webster Groves, 655 S.W.2d 760, 764 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (quoting Jones v. State Dep't Pub. Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 39-40 (Mo. App. 1962)); see also Op. Mo. Att'y Gen. No. 256 (Dec. 21, 1965) ("Fair play dictates that the hearing be conducted in an......
  • Garrard v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 6 Enero 1964
    ...plowing cotton four or five years before the date of hearing, 'he had some kind of a spell.' Relying upon Jones v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 37, counsel contend that, in the aforesaid particulars, the referee 'displayed bias and prejudice' against claimant ......
  • Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1968
    ... ... engineer in the Valuation Department of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, and James ... 3, etc. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 210 F.2d 325, 329--330, Jones v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 354 ... ...
  • Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. Potts, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 Junio 1990
    ...must comport with those rudiments of fair play and due process that befit a judicial trial. Jones v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 40[4-6] (Mo.App.1962). That means that in the adjudication of private rights, the administrative agency must not only provide fair pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Section 99 Fair Hearing
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Administrative Law Deskbook Chapter 4 Judicial Review of Missouri Administrative Action
    • Invalid date
    ...Ave. Area Ass’n v. City of Webster Groves, 655 S.W.2d 760, 764 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983); Jones v. State Dep’t of Pub. Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 39–40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1962). This requires that a party in a contested case administrative proceeding must be given an opportunity to be heard at......
  • Section 3 Role of the Hearing Officer
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Administrative Law Deskbook Chapter 6 Evidence and Burden of ProofEvidence and Burden of Proof
    • Invalid date
    ...hearing officer demonstrate prejudice, a fair hearing is denied and reversal is required. Jones v. State Dep’t of Pub. Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1962). An appellant challenging the impartiality of the administrative decision-maker carries the burden of overcoming th......
  • Section 28 Impartial Tribunal
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Personnel Hearings Before Administrative Hearing Agencies Guidebook Chapter 6 Contested Case Hearings
    • Invalid date
    ...and board members to determine if there has been a fair and impartial hearing. In Jones v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 1962), involving a hearing as to whether a husband was disabled, thereby entitling his wife to certain benefits, the appel......
  • Section 28 Impartial Tribunal
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Administrative Law Deskbook Chapter 10 Personnel Hearings Before Administrative Hearing Agencies
    • Invalid date
    ...and board members to determine if there has been a fair and impartial hearing. In Jones v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37, 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 1962), involving a hearing as to whether a husband was disabled, thereby entitling his wife to certain benefits, the appel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT