Opinion ID: 2419331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing of MHFRC to Appeal

Text: Charter argues that MHFRC lacks standing to appeal a decision of AHC to the circuit court, asserting that MHFRC is a subordinate administrative agency which is not legally aggrieved by a reversing decision of a higher administrative tribunal. If the claim had merit it would end our inquiry, but we reject it. Charter places its primary reliance on Kostman v. Pine Lawn Bank and Trust Company, 540 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1976). There the Commissioner of Finance denied the application of a bank for permission to relocate its primary facility, but his decision was reversed by the State Banking Board. The commissioner then sought judicial review of the board's decision. We held that the decision of the board represented a determination at the highest administrative level and that the Commissioner of Finance, as a subordinate administrative official, was not legally aggrieved. Charter argues that the MHFRC is likewise the subordinate of the Administrative Hearing Commission, so that it is not legally aggrieved when its decision is overturned. The analogy is not apt. The State Banking Board was a specialized agency with the ultimate authority to set policy concerning financial institutions. AHC, by contrast, is an administrative tribunal of generalized authority existing to provide sound hearing procedures in administrative matters. MHFRC is a policy-making agency in the field of health care and it has an interest in vindicating and upholding its official acts and procedures. Cf. Goldberg v. State Tax Commission, 618 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. 1981) (Director of Revenue, who was responsible for collecting all monies due the state, could appeal from decision of State Tax Commission which was not the superior of the Director of Revenue); Shelley v. Missouri Commission for Blind, 309 Mo. 612, 274 S.W. 688, 691 (banc 1925) (Commissioners for the Blind were parties to circuit court review of their action and could appeal the decision of the circuit court); Cunningham v. Leimkuehler, 276 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.App.1955) (City of St. Louis Board of Adjustment found to be an aggrieved party with the right to appeal a circuit court decision). MHFRC has standing to resist a challenge to its decision-making processes. Appeal by MHFRC to the circuit court, furthermore, is authorized by the specific language of § 621.145, RSMo Supp.1984, which reads as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, all final decisions of the administrative hearing commission shall be subject to judicial review as provided in and subject to the provisions of sections 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo, except that in cases where a disciplinary order may be entered by the agency, no decision of the administrative hearing commission shall be deemed final until such order is entered. For purposes of review, the action of the commission and the order, if any, of the agency shall be treated as one decision. The right to judicial review as provided herein shall also be available to administrative agencies aggrieved by a final decision of the administrative hearing commission. (Emphasis supplied). The failure to mention MHFRC as a party having standing to appeal in § 197.335 is of no significance. That statute lists specifically the parties who have standing to appeal from decisions of MHFRC, which obviously would not undertake an appeal from its own decision. [3] Section 621.145 is one of the statutory sections explicitly referred to in and incorporated into § 197.335. It confirms MHFRC's standing in the present appeal. We notice also the presence of appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the judgment of the circuit court, as against the suggestion that the judgment of the circuit court is not final because it directs further action by AHC. The judgment essentially granted a new trial before AHC. Judicial review from decisions of the Administrative Hearing Commission may be taken as in other civil cases. § 536.140.6, RSMo. An order granting a new trial is expressly made appealable by § 512.020, RSMo 1978.