Morton v. State Social Security Commission
| Decision Date | 18 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 6710.,6710. |
| Parties | MORTON v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; William E. Barton, Judge.
Not to be published in State Reports.
Proceeding by Naomi B. Morton for reinstatement on the state assistance rolls. From an order and judgment remanding the case to the Department of Public Health and Welfare, successor to the State Social Security Commision, for redetermination after denial of the application by the Division of Welfare, the Commission appeals.
Reversed.
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., of Jefferson City, for appellant.
Covert & Hiett, of Houston, for respondent.
The first matter for disposition is respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal.
On September 29, 1947, respondent filed motion to dismiss the appeal and accompanied same by the affidavit of William Duke Hiett that appellant's brief was not served on respondent until September 8, 1947, which was less than 30 days before this case was set for argument in this Court, on October 6, 1947. Rule 1.09 of the Supreme Court.
Appellant has filed an affidavit, stating that two copies of appellant's brief, with the requisite amount of postage, were deposited in the United States Post Office at Jefferson City, Missouri, on September 5, 1947, and properly addressed to respondent's attorneys at Houston, Missouri. In due course of mail, appellant's brief should have reached Houston, Missouri, on September 6, 1947.
It is true, that the 30 days before the hearing of the case in this Court expired on September 6, 1947. No reason is given for the failure of respondent's attorneys to receive such brief on September 6, 1947. Respondent has also filed a brief on the merits.
Under the circumstances, especially as respondent has briefed the case on its merits, we feel that respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal should be and is overruled.
There is little dispute as to the facts in the case. It appears that respondent, a resident of Texas County, Missouri, had been on the assistance rolls of the State, and has been removed therefrom. Afterwards, she filed application for reinstatement. A hearing on her application was held and respondent was unsuccessful. A hearing was held before the Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Welfare, successor to the State Social Security Commission, and respondent's application was again denied. Thereupon, respondent appealed to the Circuit Court of Texas County, Missouri, and there respondent was successful and the circuit court ordered respondent's case remanded to the Department of Health and Welfare for a redetermination. That department has appealed to this Court.
The statement of the case and the findings of fact by the Division of Welfare, of the Department of Health and Welfare, are remarkably free from bias and prejudice, and the evidence before Hon. Elmore G. Crowe, the Referee, was preserved and constituted all the evidence before the trial court.
On such evidence, the trial court found the issues for respondent and ordered the case "remanded for redetermination by the Department of Health and Welfare of the State of Missouri." Appeal having been taken from that order of the trial court, it becomes our duty to determine, from the evidence before the trial court, whether or not such order was properly made.
This Court has appellate jurisdiction. Section 9411, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S. A; Rosebraugh v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 196 S.W.2d 27. Section 9411, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A., provides in part that, "If the court (the Circuit Court) shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's elegibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by the State Commission, or that its decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, the court shall, in such event, remand the proceedings for redetermination of the issues by the State Commission * * *." (Words emphasized ours.)
In 1941 the Legislature extended the power of review to courts of common pleas. Laws of 1941, page 334, Mo.R.S.A. § 2044.1. In 1945 the Legislature abolished the State Security Commission and transferred its powers and duties to the Department of Public Health and Welfare. Laws of 1945, page 945, Mo.R.S.A. § 9759.1 et seq., and transferred the duties of the Social...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrard v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...270 S.W.2d 817, 820(4); Dysart v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 361 S.W.2d 347, 350(1); Morton v. State Social Security Com'n., Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d 272, 274(5). At the date of hearing, to wit, on February 8, 1962, Grady was thirty-five years of age. His formal education t......
-
Norman v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...there was substantial evidence to support it. Collins v. Division of Welfare, Mo., 270 S.W.2d 817, 819(2); Morton v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d 272, 274(4); Kelley v. State Social Security Commission, 236 Mo.App. 1058, 161 S.W.2d 661, 662-663(1). In ruling that qu......
-
Ponyard v. Drexel
... ... "Not to be reported in State Reports." ... Action by Nelson Ponyard ... ...
-
Dysart v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...upon, nor determinative of this appeal. Brattin v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 194 S.W.2d 536; Morton v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d 272; Collins v. Division of Welfare, 364 Mo. 1032, 270 S.W.2d 817, 820; Ellis v. State Department of Public Health & ......