 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taluc v. Trans World Airlines11/21/2000
Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED.
Crahan and Draper III, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
Appellant, Trans World Airlines, ("TWA"), appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, ("Commission"), unanimously dismissing its application for review for failure to comply with Rule 8 CSR 20-030(3)(A). We affirm.
On January 17, 1996, respondent, James Tulac, ("employee"), an employee of TWA, in the course of his employment, slipped on some grease at the rear of an aircraft and injured his left knee. On September 21, 1998, employee filed a workers' compensation claim against TWA and the Second injury fund. A hearing was held on December 3, 1999. The administrative law judge awarded employee permanent and total disability benefits and found TWA liable for those benefits.
On February 25, 2000, TWA filed an application for review by the Commission. The application in its entirety stated as follows:
1. The Administrative Law Judge erred in his conclusion that the employee is permanently and totally disabled;
2. The Administrative Law Judge erred in his conclusion regarding Second Injury Fund liability;
3. The Administrative Law Judge erred in his award to the employee against the employer/insurer for unspecified future medical costs;
4. The employer, Trans World Airlines, Inc., requests the right to file a brief and to present oral arguments concerning the nature and extent of the employee's permanent disability, Second Injury Fund liability for any such disability and the propriety of the award to the employee against the employer/insurer of unspecified future medical costs.
On March 1, 2000, employee filed a motion for hardship setting or in the alternative, a motion to dismiss the application for review pursuant to 8 CSR 20-3.040. On March 13, 2000, the Second Injury Fund moved to dismiss TWA's application because the application failed to comply with 8 CSR 20-3.030(3)(A). On March 23, 2000, the Commission ruled:
Paragraph two of the application for review pertaining to the Second Injury Fund provides no specific allegation as to why the administrative law judge may have erred. The Second Injury Fund's motion to dismiss is granted.
We further find that none of the paragraphs in the pleading are adequate to preserve an issue for review. There are no specific allegations as to how the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge on any of the controlling issues are not properly supported. On our own motion, the Commission dismisses the entire Application for Review because it fails to comply with 8 CSR 20-3.030(3)(A). See Smith v. Smiley Container Corp., 997 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App. 2000).
Having dismissed the Application for Review in its entirety, employee's motion for hardship is moot.
TWA appeals the order of the Commission dismissing its application for review.
Appellate courts "review the decisions of the Commission, which are clearly interpretations or applications of law for correctness without deference to the Commission's judgment." Tidwell v. Kloster Co., 8 S.W.3d 585, 588 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999). "Findings of ultimate facts reached through application of rules of law, rather than by natural reasoning based on facts alone, are conclusions of law." Id. "Where the evidentiary facts are not disputed, the Commission's award becomes a question of law." Id.
TWA raises two points on appeal. It argues the Commission erred in dismissing its application for review because 1) its application was specific enough to comply w
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|