Webb v. Board of Police Com'rs of Kansas City, WD

• Decision Date: 23 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: Webb v. Board of Police Com'rs of Kansas City, 694 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. App. 1985)
• Parties: John E. WEBB, Respondent, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Appellant. 36179.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 927

694 S.W.2d 927

John E. WEBB, Respondent, v.BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Appellant.

No. WD 36179.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

July 23, 1985.

Russell D. Jacobson, Kansas City, for appellant.

Peter M. Schloss, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and MANFORD, JJ.

TURNAGE, Chief Judge.

The Board of Police Commissioners terminated the employment of John Webb as a police officer.The circuit court reversed the Board's decision and the Board appealed.Affirmed and remanded.

The charges filed with the Board against Webb alleged that he had been absent from duty without properly authorized leave and was thus in violation of the personnel policies of the police department.The specifications stated that on April 15, 1982, Webb called his duty station and stated that he would not report for duty because he was suffering from back pain.When he was requested to support this medical condition, Webb furnished a letter from a psychologist.The specifications further stated that Webb refused to work from April 15 through April 19, 1982, and as of the date of the filing of the charges and specifications, he had not returned to duty nor presented medical evidence for his failure to do so, nor had he obtained authorized leave.

At the Board hearing, Webb testified that an injury he received in the line of duty caused his back pain, and as a resu1t he was unable to ride in a patrol car for a continuous period of eight hours.He stated that prior to April 15he had been able to work by getting out of his car for 10-20 minutes every hour and either standing or walking about.He said he was told by his superior that this would no longer be allowed and that he was to remain in his car unless actually required to leave it in the performance of duty.Webb said that he could not work under that condition and that was the reason he called in sick.Two letters from a medical doctor were introduced into evidence, and both stated that Webb had chronic lumbar strain which was exacerbated by driving.One letter stated that Webb's prognosis was guarded at best.The second letter from his physician gave the same diagnosis and prognosis and further stated that the anticipated duration of disability was indefinite.These letters were written in March of 1982 and were in Webb's personnel file.

The Board did not present any medical evidence, but did present evidence of Webb's failure to report for duty.

The only finding of fact made by the Board was that Webb absented himself without proper authorization from scheduled duty on five consecutive days in April of 1982.In its conclusions of law, the Board recited a number of its personnel rules and concluded that the conduct set forth in the findings of fact constituted a violation of the rules of conduct of the police department, and constituted cause for disciplinary action.The Board's decision was to terminate Webb from his employment as a police officer.

This court cannot review the Board's decision in the absence of specific findings of fact.This court's review is limited to a determination of whether the action of the Board is supported by substantial evidence, violates the provision of any law, or is otherwise arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.Sowder v. Board of Police Commissioners, 553 S.W.2d 525, 527(Mo.App.1977).

This court has stated in Century State Bank v. State Banking Board of Missouri, 523 S.W.2d 856, 858(Mo.App.1975), andCitizens for Rural Preservation, Inc. v. Robinett, 648 S.W.2d 117, 126[11, 12](Mo.App...