Opinion ID: 2430211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Original Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts

Text: For their next attack on § 287.120 as applied in Killian , plaintiffs claim a violation of Mo. Const. art. V, § 14, providing that [t]he circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal. The legislature has denominated the workers' compensation scheme as the mandatory procedure for all work-related accidental claims, and such is within the legislature's inherent power, which is unlimited and practically absolute, except for limitations imposed by the Constitution. Hickey v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 363 Mo. 1039, 256 S.W.2d 775, 778 (1953). In De May, 37 S.W.2d at 653, this Court found the Workers' Compensation Act, which at that time provided for appeal of the Commission's decisions to the circuit court, did not violate Article V, § 14. The statute, like current § 287.490.1 (providing for appeals to circuit court for claims arising before August 13, 1980), tightly limited the functions of the circuit court, providing that no additional evidence shall be heard and in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact made by the commission within its power shall be conclusive and binding, and further that the [circuit] court, on appeal, shall review only questions of law. The statute in essence limited the circuit court's role to an appellate review function. Appellants, however, urge that a subsequent amendment to Article V, § 14, dictates a different result in this case. The clause formerly provided that: The circuit court shall have jurisdiction over all criminal cases not otherwise provided for by law, exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases not otherwise provided for, and concurrent and appellate jurisdiction as provided by law. (Emphasis added.) Mo. Const. art. V, § 14, 1945. In 1976, the language not otherwise provided for was omitted, and the current version states that [t]he circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal. Appellants claim the amendment demands that the circuit court at least have concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission to determine whether the injury is accidental, but we cannot so interpret the 1976 amendment. Article V, the Judicial Article, is devoted to governing the courts and judges, and we do not read the amendment as a constraint upon the previously established power of the administrative agencies.