State ex rel. v. Mo. Workmen's Comp. Comm.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1931
• Docket Number: No. 21868.,21868.
• Citation: 40 S.W.2d 503
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL., PATRICK M. KENNEY, ANNA KENNEY AND ALROY S. PHILLIPS, RELATORS, v. MISSOURI WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

40 S.W.2d 503

STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL., PATRICK M. KENNEY, ANNA KENNEY AND ALROY S. PHILLIPS, RELATORS, v. MISSOURI WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

No. 21868.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Opinion filed June 23, 1931.

Mandamus. Original Proceeding.

ALTERNATIVE WRIT QUASHED.

Alroy S. Phillips for relators.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General and Denton Dunn, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

BECKER, J.

This is a petition by the dependents of a deceased employee for an alternative writ of mandamus directed to the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, to compel it to certify the record of their cause to the circuit court on their appeal from an award of the commission, in which the petition shows the following ultimate facts.

The claim for compensation was duly filed and heard by one commissioner, who, on March 28, 1931, made and duly issued a finding and award in favor of the dependents. Within ten days from the date of this award the employer and insurer duly filed an application for review, and the dependents filed no such application. After the time for filing such application expired, the commission permitted the employer and insurer to withdraw their said application. On April 27, 1931, within thirty days from the date of the award, the dependents and their attorney duly filed with the commission a notice of appeal to the circuit court. And the commission now refuses to certify the record to the circuit court on the ground that the dependents failed to file an application for a review of the award.

The only question in the case is whether an appeal may be taken to the circuit court from the award of one commissioner, without an application for review and a review by the full commission.

The sections of our Workmen's Compensation Act which are germane to the question in hand are sections 3339, 3341 and 3342, Revised Statutes 1929.

Section 3339, among other things, provides that "the commission or any of its members shall hear in a summary proceeding the parties at issue and their representatives and witnesses and shall determine the dispute. All evidence introduced at any such hearings shall be reported by a compentent stenographer appointed by the commission. The award, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law and any other matters pertinent to the question at issue, shall be filed with the record of proceedings, and a copy of the award shall immediately be sent by registered United States mail to the parties in dispute and the employer's insurer."

Section 3341: "If an application for review is made to the commission within ten days from the date of the award, the full commission, if the first hearing was not held before the full commission, shall review the evidence, or, if deemed advisable, as soon as practicable hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses, and shall make an award and file same in like manner as specified in the foregoing section."

Section 3342: "The final award of the commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall, within thirty days from the date of the final award, appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the accident occurred... ."

The fundamental rule in the construction of the statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the purposes of the Legislature (Consolidated School District No. 1 v. Hackmann, 302 Mo. 558, 258 S.W. 1011], and a statute must be liberally construed in the light of its underlying reasons, keeping in mind the furtherance of the purpose sought thereby. [Lusk v. Public Serv. Comm. of State of Mo., 41 S. Ct. 192, 254 U.S. 535, 65 L. Ed. 289.]

It would thus seem that the Legislature intended and expected that in most cases the claim of an employee would be presented to an individual commissioner or a referee for the obvious purpose of expediting the great number of claims that of necessity arise under the act, and in the belief that a percentage of cases would thus be finally disposed of by the award of such single commissioner or referee, and therefore the Legislature provided that only when either party is dissatisfied with the finding and award of the commissioner, and a rehearing is requested, that it be mandatory for the full commission to review the evidence and make an award; and by section 3342, make a "final award of the commission conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall, within thirty days from the date of the final award, appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the accident occurred."

It would hardly seem reasonable, in light of a reading of the sections of the statute in point here, that the Legislature intended to provide a method of appeal direct from the award and findings of fact made by a...