McCracken v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCracken v. Director of Revenue

402 S.W.3d 130, 2013 WL 3227537, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 756

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 24, 2013·No. No. SD 32368·Published

Opinion

DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J.

A physician advised the Director of Revenue that Betty McCracken, age 82, no longer could drive safely.¹ The Director notified Ms. McCracken that her driving privilege would be revoked unless she offered contrary evidence. She did not comply and her license was revoked.

She successfully petitioned the circuit court to set aside the revocation, alleging that the Director lacked “good cause” to believe Ms. McCracken could not safely operate a motor vehicle. The Director appeals.

Our review is de novo. “Whether the Director’s determination of good cause had [131]*131an adequate basis is a question of law.” Leaton v. Director of Revenue, 187 S.W.3d 894, 896 (Mo.App. W.D.2006). We reverse.

Under case law and by statute, the Director may rely on a physician’s report setting forth facts “from which a reasonable person could believe that [the Director] should exercise the discretion granted by section 302.291.” Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 896; see also § 302.291.3. “Under the statute, as a matter of law, good cause exists where the record contains a report from a law enforcement officer, physician or family member stating that the driver cannot safely operate a motor vehicle.” Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 897 (our emphasis).

Leaton supports the Director’s claim of good cause for her action. We are offered no argument to the contrary.² Judgment reversed.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J., and DON E. BURRELL, C.J., concur.

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

DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J.

A physician advised the Director of Revenue that Betty McCracken, age 82, no longer could drive safely.¹ The Director notified Ms. McCracken that her driving privilege would be revoked unless she offered contrary evidence. She did not comply and her license was revoked.

She successfully petitioned the circuit court to set aside the revocation, alleging that the Director lacked “good cause” to believe Ms. McCracken could not safely operate a motor vehicle. The Director appeals.

Our review is de novo. “Whether the Director’s determination of good cause had [131]*131an adequate basis is a question of law.” Leaton v. Director of Revenue, 187 S.W.3d 894, 896 (Mo.App. W.D.2006). We reverse.

Under case law and by statute, the Director may rely on a physician’s report setting forth facts “from which a reasonable person could believe that [the Director] should exercise the discretion granted by section 302.291.” Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 896; see also § 302.291.3. “Under the statute, as a matter of law, good cause exists where the record contains a report from a law enforcement officer, physician or family member stating that the driver cannot safely operate a motor vehicle.” Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 897 (our emphasis).

Leaton supports the Director’s claim of good cause for her action. We are offered no argument to the contrary.² Judgment reversed.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J., and DON E. BURRELL, C.J., concur.

McCracken v. Director of Revenue, 402 S.W.3d 130, 2013 WL 3227537, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 756 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

402 S.W.3d 130 (McCracken v. Director of Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related