Title: Dependents of Townsend v. Dyer Woodturnings
Citation: 459 So. 2d 300
Docket Number: 55166
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 1984

459 So. 2d 300 (1984) DEPENDENTS OF Woodrow Wilson TOWNSEND v. DYER WOODTURNINGS, Inc. and Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance. No. 55166. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 7, 1984. C. Emanuel Smith, Starkville, for appellants. Dan McCullen, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens &amp; Cannada, Jackson, for appellees. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: The dependents of Woodrow Wilson Townsend have appealed from an order of the Circuit Court, First Judicial District, Chickasaw County, dismissing this cause from the docket of that court. They have assigned two (2) errors in the lower court, but we discuss only the assignment of whether or not the lower court erred in dismissing the cause, which is dispositive of the case, and we affirm. On March 31, 1983, the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission entered an order denying death benefits to the claimants. On April 29, 1983, the claimants filed with the Circuit Clerk for the First Judicial District, Chickasaw County, a "Petition for Judicial Review" attempting to appeal from the Commission order. No *301 notice of appeal was filed with the Secretary of the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of the Commission order. Subsequently, claimants filed an "Application for Deviation from Rule" with the Commission to permit a deviation from Procedural Rule 11 for the reason that the rule changes the requirement of the state statute and the strict compliance with said rule under the facts of the case would tend to deprive the claimants of a substantial right. On September 13, 1983, the lower court entered an order dismissing the cause from its docket, sua sponte, on the ground that an order entered by the Commission on July 14, 1983, disposed of the cause.[1] The simple question presented to the Court is whether or not the claimants timely and properly perfected an appeal from the Commission order to the circuit court and whether that court erred in dismissing the attempted appeal from its docket. Mississippi Code Annotated § 71-3-51 (1972), in part, provides the following: The Commission adopted Procedural Rule 11 following the statute, pertinent parts of which follow: It is undisputed that the claimants failed to comply with the statute and with Procedural Rule 11 and they have only attempted to relieve themselves by asking for a deviation from the Rule 11, citing Commission Rule 14, which states: Relief was not granted by the Commission under Rule 14, and it is obvious from reading the rule that it was not applicable to the petition. Claimants contend that the word "may" in the statute makes it discretionary as to the manner in which an appeal is taken and cite Leake County Coop. (AAL) v. Dependents of Barrett, 226 So. 2d 608 (Miss. 1969); Leflore Bank &amp; Trust Co. v. Leflore, Co., 202 Miss. 552, 32 So. 2d 744 (1947), and Gee v. Rimmer, 188 Miss. 460, 195 So. 342 (1940). Those cases are distinguishable *302 from the present case and are not authority for their position. The first paragraph of the statute states that the final award of the Commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the controversy shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of its filing in the office of the Commission and notification to the parties, appeal to the circuit court. That part of the statute is mandatory as to the time when the appeal must be taken. The second paragraph of the statute provides that such appeal may be taken by filing notice of the appeal with the Commission. There is no other statute which provides for an appeal from the Commission to the circuit court and the procedure set forth therein is jurisdictional of an appeal to the circuit court. Mississippi State Hwy. Comm'n v. First Methodist Church of Biloxi, 323 So. 2d 92 (Miss. 1975); Fisher v. Crowe, 289 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1974); Shannon Chair Company v. City of Houston, 295 So. 2d 753 (Miss. 1974); Marlboro Shirt Co. (Reliance Mfg. Co.) v. Whittington, 195 So. 2d 920 (Miss. 1967). In discussing the statute and Rule 11, Dunn's Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 386 (3d ed. 1982) states the following: As stated, there is only one method and procedure for appeal from the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission to the Circuit Court. Likewise, now there is only one method of appeal in cases from the trial courts of the state to this Court. Moran v. Necaise, 437 So. 2d 1222 (Miss. 1983). The claimants did not timely perfect their appeal from the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District, Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and that court properly dismissed the case from its docket. There being no error in the order of dismissal in the lower court, the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J., and BOWLING, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur. HAWKINS, J., not participating. [1] An appeal was not properly and effectively taken from the Commission order entered March 31, 1983.