Opinion

Boyle v. Trump

  • 584 S.W.2d 119
  • 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2399
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 26, 1979
Status
Published
Author
Clemens
On the bench
Clemens, Crist, Gunn, Reinhard
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 67.3%

The opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was denied by the defendant Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund Board of University City. On plaintiff’s petition for review the circuit court, for want of an adequate record, remanded the case to defendant Board for reconsideration upon an appropriate record.

We hold the circuit court’s order on review was not an appealable order and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal.

Record of the Board’s meeting states nar-ratively: Plaintiff appeared with his counsel who stated plaintiff had developed a fear of fighting fires. A psychiatrist’s report was presented to that effect. The Board questioned plaintiff about his performance while in service and by a vote of 5 to 0 denied plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff filed a petition in the circuit court for review of the Board’s denial of his claim. Both parties moved for summary judgment, but the court denied both motions, ruling: “ . . . although discussion was had at the ‘hearing’ on May 26, 1976, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent produced probative evidence (or competent and substantial evidence) on which to base a proper decision and that no detailed record was made . . . This cause is remanded back to the Board . for reconsideration and complete hearing of Petitioner’s claim upon appropriate record being made of same.”

This ruling was in accord with Sect. 536.-130, RSMo., requiring “a complete transcript of the entire record” of testimony before the Board. Further, the record failed to comply with Sect. 536.090, RSMo., requiring the Board to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court properly remanded the case for compliance with the statutory requirements.

That ruling was not an appealable order. As held in Iron County v. State Tax Commission, 480 S.W.2d 65 [3], 71 (Mo.1972), it is the duty of an administrative agency “to resolve disputed questions of fact and set these resolutions forth as the agency’s findings in order that, upon review, the Circuit Court can perform its function of review as required by Chapter 536, VAMS. The appeal filed here is premature as the order of the Circuit Court does not constitute a final disposition of the case and is not a final appealable order.” So it is here.

Appeal dismissed.

REINHARD, P. J., and GUNN and CRIST, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.