Long v. City of Hannibal
| Decision Date | 09 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 46975,46975 |
| Citation | 670 S.W.2d 567 |
| Parties | Ronald L. LONG, Respondent, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL, A Municipal Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Fredrich J. Cruse, City Counselor, Hannibal, for appellant.
James B. Herd, Deeba, DeStefano, Sauter & Herd, St. Louis, for respondent.
Appellant City of Hannibal (hereinafter the City) appeals a circuit court judgment reversing a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission granting the City a credit for payment of $11,200.00 in permanent partial disability to Ronald L. Long (hereinafter employee).
In June of 1976 in the course of his employment as a police officer, employee contracted ocular histoplasmosis, a disease which causes blindness. Both of employee's eyes were infected, but his right eye deteriorated more rapidly. In February of 1978, the employee and the City executed a "stipulation of rating" agreement which provided that the City would pay employee a lump sum of $11,200.00 representing a compensation rate of $80 per week for 140 weeks as permanent partial disability for the 100% loss of sight in employee's right eye. The extent of deterioration in employee's left eye was uncertain at this point, and pending a determination, his file was held open at the Division of Workmen's Compensation.
At a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), the issues of updating employee's disability status and whether it was proper to grant employee's wife a nursing services award were examined. Employee introduced evidence that his wife voluntarily quit her job to assume responsibility for their correspondence and transportation in addition to specially arranging his clothing, furniture, and reading the newspaper aloud.
On August 7, 1981, the ALJ entered an Order finding employee permanently and totally disabled and requiring the City to pay $95 per week for employee's life. The Order also granted $100 per week to employee's wife for nursing services and contained the notation "this award is subject to a credit for benefits previously paid by the employer, if any." The City then filed an appeal and an application for commutation or set-off which the Commission received on August 28, 1981. The Commission entered an order finding the employee permanently totally disabled, crediting the City for payment of $11,200.00 in permanent partial disability against the $95 per week permanent total disability award, and awarding $100 per week to employee's wife for her nursing services. Employee appealed to the Circuit Court. After a hearing, the Circuit Court reversed the Commission's Order on the grounds that the City's appeal to the Commission was not timely filed, and that the issue of a credit to the City was waived. We disagree and the circuit court's judgment is reversed.
The City first argues their appeal was timely filed within the requisite twenty day period since the mailing receipt was postmarked August 27, 1981. There is no question that the timely filing of an application for review of an ALJ's award in a Workmen's Compensation case is jurisdictional and requires strict compliance. Cagle v. Regal Plastics, 522 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.App.1975). Employee's argument however, is premised on the assumption that an appeal to the Commission is deemed filed as of the date it is received and overlooks the fact that § 287.480 RSMo 1978 specifically provides that any notice of appeal be deemed filed as of the date endorsed by the U.S. Post Office on the envelope or container in which such paper is received. While the filing of the appeal in this case was received 21 days after the ALJ's decision, the City produced what we find to be sufficient evidence that it was postmarked within twenty days as required by the statute. Specifically, at the circuit court hearing, the City offered both a mailing receipt postmarked August 27, 1981, and a letter of acknowledgment from the Commission also stating that the appeal was postmarked on that date. While the statute provides that the postmark on the envelope containing the appeal is the actual filing date, it imposes no requirements on the Commission to retain the envelopes. Absent any legislative directive to the Commission to retain the postmarked envelope, we find the postmarked mailing receipt and the letter of acknowledgment sufficient to establish the appeal in this case was filed within the requisite 20 days. To find otherwise would penalize the applicant for the Commission's failure to retain the envelope which is an occurrence clearly beyond the applicant's control.
Having found the Commission did in fact have the jurisdiction to review the ALJ's award, we next consider whether the Commission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Exp.
...time limits of § 287.480 are jurisdictional, "strict compliance" with those time limits is required. See, e.g., Long v. City of Hannibal, 670 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.App.1984). The requirement of strict compliance with the time limits is not a rule of statutory construction. Strict compliance i......
-
Haynes v. Emerson Elec. Co.
...767 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Mo.App.1989); Richardson v. Falcon Products, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Mo.App.1987); Long v. City of Hannibal, 670 S.W.2d 567, 569-70 (Mo.App.1984). Our duty is to determine from the record as a whole whether the Commission could reasonably have made its findings and a......
-
Davis v. Roadway Exp., Inc.
...Commission's award, not that of the ALJ. Richardson v. Falcon Products, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Mo.App.1987); Long v. City of Hannibal, 670 S.W.2d 567, 569-70 (Mo.App.1984). Our review is governed by § 287.495, RSMo 1986, which "1. ... Upon appeal no additional evidence shall be heard an......
-
Gee v. Bell Pest Control, WD
...the Commission. Our review is only of the Commission's decision and not that of the administrative law judge. Long v. City of Hannibal, 670 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Mo.App.1984), citing Conover v. Missouri State Highway Dept., 618 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Mo.App.1981). Mr. Gee filed a motion in limine in o......