Hoenig v. Corrigan Brothers, Inc.

983 S.W.2d 526, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1780, 1998 WL 709550
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 13, 1998
Docket73605, 73712
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 983 S.W.2d 526 (Hoenig v. Corrigan Brothers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoenig v. Corrigan Brothers, Inc., 983 S.W.2d 526, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1780, 1998 WL 709550 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Hoenig (Employee) appeals from two awards by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying compensation. Corrigan Brothers, Inc. (Employer) appeals from a third award by the Commission allowing compensation. We affirm.

From August 1964 to February 22, 1996, Employee worked for Employer as a plumber. Employee filed three claims for workers’ compensation for incidents occurring on July 14, 1994, September 13, 1994 and February 16, 1995. In two awards, the Commission denied compensation for the July 14 th and September 13 th incidents. Employee appeals from these decisions. In the third award, the Commission found that there was insufficient evidence of injury or disability resulting from the February 16 th incident but that Employee was entitled to compensation because he sustained an occupational disease. Employer appeals from this decision. On this court’s motion, the two appeals were consolidated.

In his first claim, Employee asserted that he was injured on July 14, 1994 while lifting a trailer. The Commission found that there was insufficient substantial competent evidence of injury and disability. In his second claim, Employee asserted that he was injured on September 13, 1994 while lifting a water main pipe. The Commission again found that there was insufficient substantial competent evidence of injury or disability. The Commission also found that Employee failed to provide Employer with proper notice of the September 13th incident.

Employee appeals from the Commission’s first two awards. The Commission’s decisions denying compensation for Employee’s first two claims are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; no error of law appears. A written opinion for Employee’s arguments would have no precedential value. The Commission’s decisions as to Employee’s claims for the July 14, 1994 and September 13, 1994 incidents are affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Employee asserted in his third claim that he was injured on February 16, 1995 while lifting a water heater. The Commission found that there was insufficient substantial competent evidence of injury or disability proximately caused by this incident. However, the Commission entered “a temporary or partial award of compensation” because Employee sustained an occupational disease causally related to his work as a plumber. Employer appeals from this decision. 1

Employee filed a motion to dismiss Employer’s appeal or in the alternative to strike certain points in Employer’s brief. Employer filed a motion to correct the Notice of Appeal or in the alternative to remand to the Commission to correct the Notice of Appeal to reflect a filing date of December 4, 1997. This court granted Employer’s motion in part, remanding the case to the Commission to make findings of fact as to the date the Notice of Appeal was to be deemed filed in accordance with section 287.480 2 .

After a hearing, the Commission found in part (1) the three awards were issued on November 4, 1997, (2) counsel for St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. mailed the Notice of Appeal by certified mail on December 4, 1997 and counsel received a paid receipt, (3) the Notice of Appeal was mailed to “Pam Hoffman (sic) [the Commission’s secretary], Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 3315 West Truman Boulevard, P.O. Box 58, Jefferson City, MO 65102,” (4) 3315 West Truman Boulevard is the street ad *528 dress for seven agencies within the Department of Labor Industrial Relations including the Commission and the Division of Workers’ Compensation, (5) P.O. Box 58, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 is the mailing address for the Division of Workers’ Compensation and P.O. Box 599, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 is the correct mailing address for the Commission, (6) when the Notice of Appeal arrived at the Commission it did not have an envelope, as the Division of Workers’ Compensation does not retain envelopes, and (7) when Pamela Hofmann received the Notice of Appeal it had a file-stamped date of December 8, 1997 from the Division of Workers’ Compensation and she certified the appeal as being filed on December 8,1997. Employee filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the appeal or in the alternative to strike all or part of the Commission’s findings.

Section 287.495 requires a party to appeal “within thirty days of the final award.” To be timely, December 4, 1997 is the last day Employer’s Notice of Appeal could be filed. Section 287.480 provides in part:

Any notice of appeal, application or other paper required under this law to be filed with the division or the commission shall, when mailed to and received by the division or the commission, be deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope or container in which such paper is received.

This court considered an analogous ease in Long v. City of Hannibal, 670 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.App.1984). In that case, the Commission received the City of Hannibal’s application for review on August 28, 1981 twenty-one days after an administrative law judge’s award. Long, 670 S.W.2d at 569. Thereafter, the Commission issued an award. Id. The circuit court reversed, in part because it found that the appeal of the administrative law judge’s award was not timely. Id. At the circuit court hearing, the City of Hannibal offered a mailing receipt postmarked August 27, 1981 and a letter from the Commission stating that the appeal was postmarked on that date. Id. This court reversed and held that this evidence was sufficient to show that the application for review was postmarked within twenty days as required by section 287.480. Id. Here, the Commission found that the Notice of Appeal was mailed certified and counsel received a paid receipt dated December 4,1997. Under 287.480, the filing date of the Notice of Appeal is December 4, 1997 and was therefore timely. Id.; See Grice v. City of St. Robert, 824 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Mo.App.1992).

Employee also asserts that the appeal should be dismissed because the Notice of Appeal “only appealed the September 13, 1994 injury” and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.’s counsel could not file a Notice of Appeal for Argonaut Insurance Co. The Notice of Appeal does list the date of the accident as September 13, 1994 but lists the injury numbers for Employee’s three claims. The Notice of Appeal is signed by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.’s counsel but provides that “Corrigan Brothers, Inc./Argonaut Insurance Company” is appealing the decision. As previously stated, Argonaut Insurance Co. insured Employer for Employee’s claims arising from the July 14,1994 and September 13, 1994 incidents and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. insured Employer for the February 16, 1995 incident.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marjorie Richardson v. Division of Employment Security
573 S.W.3d 125 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2019)
Dunkle v. Dunkle
158 S.W.3d 823 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)
Cidlik v. Subsurface Contractors
110 S.W.3d 856 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Headrick v. Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co.
108 S.W.3d 114 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Miller v. Penmac Personnel Services, Inc.
68 S.W.3d 574 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)
Harris v. Pauwell's Transformers
53 S.W.3d 164 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2001)
Swoboda v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
991 S.W.2d 211 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
983 S.W.2d 526, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1780, 1998 WL 709550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoenig-v-corrigan-brothers-inc-moctapp-1998.