Rackley v. Firemen's Retirement System, No. 61892
| Decision Date | 05 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 61892 |
| Parties | Clifton RACKLEY, Appellant, v. The FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Alif Amon Williams, St. Louis, for appellant.
Kathleen A. Gormley, Michael Garvin, St. Louis, for respondent.
Appellant, Clifton Rackley, appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis affirming a determination made by respondent, The Firemen's Retirement System, denying disability retirement for appellant. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant served as a firefighter with the St. Louis City Fire Department from March 16, 1980, until his discharge on March 30, 1988. 1 On February 5, 1987, appellant was involved in an accident. While extinguishing a fire, a sudden pressure on the fire hose threw appellant backward into a refrigerator, causing him to strike his shoulder and back. This was the fifth injury claimed by appellant over a ten-month period.
Allegedly due to continuing back pain caused by the February, 1987 accident, appellant filed an application for a service-connected disability retirement pursuant to Section 4.18.155 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis. Upon receipt of the application, the Board of Trustees for the Firemen's Retirement System appointed a Medical Board consisting of three orthopedic surgeons. The responsibilities of this Medical Board included reviewing appellant's medical records, examining him, and forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Based on a unanimous finding by the Medical Board that no orthopedic abnormality existed to explain appellant's alleged inability to function as a firefighter, the Board of Trustees denied appellant's application for disability retirement benefits.
Appellant then requested a hearing before the Retirement Board at which he was allowed to testify. Upon completion of the hearing, the retirement benefits were again denied appellant on October 27, 1988.
An appeal was filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on November 28, 1988. On December 8, 1989, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice for appellant's failure to prosecute. A second petition for review was filed by appellant on January 22, 1990. On July 25, 1990, respondent filed a motion to dismiss due to the untimeliness of the appeal. The trial court denied the motion and upheld the findings of the Board of Trustees on March 11, 1992. This appeal ensued.
Initially, we find the necessity of addressing the timeliness of the appeal filed in the circuit court. Respondent asserts that though appellant's first petition for review was timely filed, the subsequent dismissal, then refiling in January of 1990, caused the appeal to be brought in an untimely manner. If this is true, asserts respondent, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the matter before it.
A petition for review of an administrative decision may be brought pursuant to RSMo § 536.110 (1986), 2 for a contested case, or pursuant to RSMo § 536.150 (1986), 3 for an uncontested case. A petition for review of a contested case must be filed within 30 days of the agency's final decision. RSMo § 536.110.1. Although there is no statutory time limit for filing a request for review of an uncontested matter, the statute has been interpreted as requiring filing within "a reasonable time." State ex rel. Fortney v. Joiner, 797 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Mo.App., W.D.1990).
A "contested case" is defined as "a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing." RSMo § 536.010(2) (1986). "A 'contested case' is a case 'which must be contested because of some requirement by statute, municipal charter, ordinance or constitutional provision for a hearing of which a record must be made unless waived.' " Housing Auth. of St. Louis v. Lovejoy, 762 S.W.2d 843, 844-5 (Mo.App., E.D.1988) (citations omitted).
In this case the governing ordinance is Section 4.18.155 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis which reads:
Upon application by the member or the Chief of the Fire Department any member who has become totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty or exposure while in the actual performance of duty in response to an emergency call shall be retired by the Board of Trustees, if the Medical Board shall certify that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated for further performance of duty, that the incapacity is likely to be permanent and that the member should be retired.
This ordinance sets out the rights and privileges to be accorded a disabled firefighter by the Board of Trustees if certain findings are made and certified by an appointed Medical Board. Considering the ordinance in light of the definition of a "contested case", we find the matter before us likely involves a contested case.
However, our review cannot stop here. A key factor to be considered in determining whether or not this is a "contested case" is the formality of the administrative hearing held. Welsch v. Dept. of Elem. & Secondary Ed., 731 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). Statutory provisions under the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act require that, in contested cases, notice be given to all necessary parties, RSMo § 536.067; oral evidence be presented at the hearing under oath or affirmation, RSMo § 536.070; there be examination and cross-examination of witnesses, Id.; exhibits be utilized, Id.; evidentiary rules be followed and a record of the proceedings be preserved, Id.; decisions be in writing with findings of facts and conclusions of law, RSMo § 536.090. See also Hagely v. Webster Groves Board of Education, 841 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Mo.1992).
A measure of procedural formality ... is essential to the meaning of "hearing" as it is used in § 536.010.... The term "hearing" presupposes a proceeding before a competent tribunal in which adversarial parties are apprised of all the evidence offered or considered, with the opportunity to test, examine, explain, or refute such evidence, and have the right to present their contentions and to support them by proof and argument....
A hearing that is not held pursuant to the procedural format necessary under MAPA does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cade v. State
...of a hearing. Shawnee Bend Special Rd. Dist. "D" v. Camden County Comm'n, 800 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Mo.App.1990); Rackley v. Firemen's Retirement Sys., 848 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo.App.1993) . The term "hearing" in § 536.010, means a proceeding in which evidence may be presented, and witnesses may be e......
-
Covert v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...the untimeliness of a second petition refiled more than a year after issuance of the agency decision. Rackley v. Firemen's Retirement Sys. , 848 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Mo. App. E. D, 1993). Guided by these principles, we find that the dismissal without prejudice entered here is a final, appealable ......
-
Covert v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
... ... after issuance of the agency decision. Rackley v ... Firemen's Retirement Sys., 848 S.W.2d 26, 29 ... ...
-
Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources of State of Mo.
...do not have jurisdiction to address the case on the merits. In support of its argument, the Department cites Rackley v. Firemen's Retirement System, 848 S.W.2d 26 (Mo.App.1993). In Rackley, as here, a Petition for Review was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Within a short time after that ......