Section 78 Case Summaries

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

The following cases address a variety of administrative law questions:

Beal v. Indus. Comm’n, 535 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. App. W.D. 1975). This is the paramount case concerning legislative intent for employment security statutes. The statutes are to be construed liberally to find coverage, in spite of the taxing provisions. Interpretations of Missouri unemployment statutes do not need to follow interpretations of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1954, I.R.C. §§ 3301 et seq.

Jennings v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 579 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979). Undisputed and unimpeached evidence may be disregarded only upon a finding concerning credibility. Mark Twain Homes, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 616 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). Unobjected‑to hearsay may support a finding of fact. The circuit court does not have authority to assess costs against either the LIRC (Labor and Industrial Relations Commission) or the claimant.

Husky Corp. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 628 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982). On appeal, the LIRC is the trier of fact and not the referee, with the right and duty to pass on credibility of witnesses.

Mark Twain Manor Homes, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, Div. of Employment Sec.,631 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982). The LIRC’s resolution of conflicting evidence is conclusive on the reviewing court.

Hanks v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 639 S.W.2d 252
(Mo. App. W.D. 1982). The referee’s active participation in the hearing did not show partiality. The statute of limitations was suspended during a period in which the DES (Division of Employment Security) was prohibited from acting. DES records are admissible as business records. Amendment of the statute to exclude coverage was prospective in nature.

City of Kansas City v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 652 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). The decision found that the consolidation of 11 claimants’ cases for a single hearing was inappropriate.

Mead Prods., A Div. of Mead Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n of Mo.,
656 S.W.2d 805 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). The claimant has the burden of proving the existence of a labor dispute.

Smith v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 656 S.W.2d 812 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). The referee has a duty to take an active role in the hearing.

Todaro v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 660 S.W.2d 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983). Determination of “good cause” is addressed by the administrative agency, and that determination is subject to judicial review only for abuse of discretion. Claimants have the basic responsibility to assert their rights. The agency also has a responsibility to ensure that it properly carries out its purpose and clearly conveys its actions to others. Reed v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 664 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984). Unobjected‑to hearsay may support a finding of fact. Expert medical evidence concerning causation is necessary if it is outside common knowledge or experience.

Powell v. Div. of Employment Sec., Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo.,669 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). The LIRC may believe or disbelieve all or none of the testimony. Disqualifying provisions of the law should be strictly construed.

Ford v. Mo. Div. of Employment Sec., 670 S.W.2d 203 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). Claimants are not liable for court costs. If claimants receive all of the benefits to which they are entitled, the issue of their separation becomes moot.

Gee v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 674 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). The appeals tribunal has authority to dismiss an appeal because of a nonappearance by the appellant.

Webb v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., Div. of Employment Sec.,674 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). The appeals tribunal has inherent power to set aside a dismissal for nonappearance on a finding of good cause. The decision cites Gee,674 S.W.2d 69.

Wilson v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., Div. of Employment Sec.,693 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985). When an issue, other than one set out in the determination, is not raised either before or during the hearing, it is a violation of due process for the referee to raise the issue in the decision.

Paul Mueller Co. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo.,
699 S.W.2d 88 (Mo. App. S.D. 1985). The referee may disbelieve uncontradicted evidence.

Wasinger v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 701 S.W.2d 793 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). The LIRC and the circuit court cannot issue advisory opinions. This case involved a workers’ compensation dispute.

Mo. Div. of Employment Sec. v. Galpine, 712 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986). The LIRC lacks authority to upgrade the character of a claimant’s military service as reflected on the claimant’s military DD Form 214.

Gordon v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 723 S.W.2d 903
(Mo. App. E.D. 1987). A transcript with 47 “unintelligibles” in 7 pages was not an adequate record on which to base a decision. The case was remanded for a new hearing.

Bresnahan v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 726 S.W.2d 327 (Mo. banc 1987). An unappealed decision of the LIRC in an unemployment benefits case collaterally estops the parties from litigating the same factual issues in a separate action. This case was abrogated by § 288.215, now RSMo 2000.

Mo. Div. of Employment Sec. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 739 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987). Documentary evidence is not required to establish the more remunerative job exemption from disqualification. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show “good cause.”

Am. Yearbook Co. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 739 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987). Collateral estoppel does not apply to subsequent litigation concerning an affiliated corporation.

Bus. Ctrs. of Mo., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n,
743 S.W.2d 588 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988). The burden of proof is on the employer to show “misconduct.”

Charles v. Mo. Div. of Employment Sec., 750 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988). Telephone hearings were approved; the claimant elected to participate and did not timely protest later.

Reed v. City of Springfield, 758 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988). The statute abrogating collateral estoppel for Chapter 288, RSMo (§ 288.215) is prospective in nature.

Div. of Employment Sec. v. Ferger, 781 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). The DES is statutorily authorized, within certain parameters, to use an administrative subpoena duces tecum during an investigatory proceeding.

Turner v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 793 S.W.2d 191
(Mo. App. W.D. 1990). Unobjected‑to hearsay is competent evidence.

Chilton v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 805 S.W.2d 722 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). Questions of fact are for the LIRC to resolve, not the courts. Whether this claimant was aware of the conditions imposed on a leave of absence she requested was an issue of fact.

Mack v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 807 S.W.2d 688
(Mo. App. W.D. 1991). A claimant bears the burden of proving eligibility for unemployment benefits. This claimant had the burden of proving that the school district did not provide her with a reasonable assurance of employment after the summer break.

Div. of Employment Sec., State of Mo. v. Cusumano, 809 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). A DES assessment is properly served by mail even if an adult relative of the debtor signs the return receipt. Defenses that may be valid against an assessment cannot be raised in a collateral proceeding, such as a motion to quash during a subsequent collection action.

Tucker v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 815 S.W.2d 37
(Mo. App. W.D. 1991). An appellant’s assessment appeal could not allege that the workers were independent contractors because the appellant was prohibited from collaterally attacking a previous determination on this issue, which had become final.

Burk v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, Div. of Employment Sec., 821 S.W.2d 585 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). The date inscribed by a licensed postage meter on an envelope delivered to the DES by the United States Postal Service qualifies for the timely mailing exception of § 288.240, now RSMo 2000.

State ex rel. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n v. McGuire,
838 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992). The court discussed what constitutes a protest under Chapter 288, RSMo.

Kansas City Club v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 840 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). When the LIRC found both the claimant and the employer credible, the LIRC should have denied the claim for benefits because a claimant has the burden to show entitlement to benefits.

Ford v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 841 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). The referee has a duty to build a record and explore the facts.

Burns v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 845 S.W.2d 553
(Mo. banc 1993). The 1989 amendment to the independent contractor exclusion of § 288.034.5, now RSMo Supp. 2010, must be applied prospectively because it is substantive in nature. Once the DES has identified the disputed worker and shown that the worker performed services for remuneration, the employer has the burden of proving that the worker is an independent contractor.

Mo. Shelfco, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 849 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993). The court applied the Burns, 845 S.W.2d 553, decision and found that the state failed to carry its burden on some of the workers and that the employer failed to carry its burden on some of the other workers.

Tin Man Enters., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 866 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). The claimant must prove “good cause” to quit. “There was evidence in the record both pro and con on the issue.” Id. at 149. If the LIRC has reached one of two possible conclusions from the evidence, the court cannot reach a contrary conclusion even if such a conclusion might have been reasonable.

Lake Ozark Constr. Indus., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 869 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993). Both the...