208.100. Appeal to circuit court — procedure. — 1. Any claimant aggrieved by the decision of the director of the family support division, children's division, or MO HealthNet division made under section 208.080 may appeal to the circuit court of the county in which such claimant resides within ninety days from the date of the action and decision appealed from.
2. The appropriate division shall furnish the claimant, upon request, with proper form of affidavit for appeal from the director of the appropriate division to the circuit court.
3. Upon the affidavit for appeal, duly executed by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths, being filed with the appropriate division within ninety days from the date of the decision of the director of the appropriate division the entire record preserved in the case at the time of the claimant's hearing, together with the hearing decision and the affidavit for appeal, shall be certified by the director of the appropriate division to the circuit court and the case shall be docketed as other civil cases except that neither party shall be required to give bond or deposit any money for docket fee on appeal to the circuit court.
4. Such appeal shall be tried in the circuit court upon the record of the proceedings had before and certified by the director of the appropriate division, which shall in such case be certified and included in the return of said director to the court.
5. Upon the record so certified by the director of the appropriate division, the circuit court shall review the action and decision of the director in accordance with the provisions of section 536.140; and the court shall render judgment affirming, reversing, or modifying the director's decision, and may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's opinion and judgment, and may order the director to take such further action as it may be proper to require.
Notes of Decisions
Powers v. State Dept. of Pub. Health & Welfare, 359 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 16× “) Section 208.100 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. provides in part, that on appeal, "If the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by said director, or that his decision…”
Hutchings Ex Rel. Hutchings v. Roling, 193 S.W.3d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff then filed a Petition for Review of Administrative Decision with the trial court pursuant to section 208.100 RSMo (2000). After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment and order that, as amended, reversed the decision to deny plaintiff a Medicaid HCBS Waiver slot…”
Pearman v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 48 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “We understand his claim to be that the circuit court should have conducted its review pursuant to § 208.100, RSMo 1994, and not § 536 .140, RSMo 1994.”
Jones v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 354 S.W.2d 37 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 6× “; Section 208.100, V.A. M.S. (Section 208.110 provides that appeals from the circuit court shall be in the same manner as provided by Section 208.”
Hohensee v. Div. of Med. Servs., 135 S.W.3d 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “On appeal, DMS argues the trial court erred in reversing the decision of the Director of DMS because (1) the court’s review was improper under Section 208.100 RSMo, *514 2000, 1 and (2) the Director’s decision was based on competent and substantial evidence as required by…”
Porter v. Emerson Elec. Co., 895 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The statute authorizing the appeal, § 208.100, RSMo 1986, allowed the aggrieved party 90 days to appeal, commencing on the date of the Director’s decision.”
Ellis v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 277 S.W.2d 331 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 6× “, “(A) Identifying Information,”- “(B) Social Information,” and “(C) Certification of Medical Review Team,” in precisely the same language as that of Dr. Engelhardt’s '“certification”, that claimant' was not physically or mentálly - incapacitated.”
Garrard v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 375 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
· cites it 4× “" But, regardless of whether the Director considered these exhibits, their erroneous reception in evidence did not, in and of itself, demonstrate that claimant was not granted "a fair hearing" within the contemplation and meaning of Section 208.100(5). And upon judicial review…”
Oanh Thile Huynh v. King, 269 S.W.3d 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “If either spouse is dissatisfied with the agency’s determination of the CSMIA or the CSRA, such spouse is entitled to a fair hearing.”
Tidrow v. Dir., Mo. State Div. of Fam. Serv., 688 S.W.2d 9 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Circuit Court to remand to the Director for a redetermination of the issues, as provided by § 208.100, RSMo Cum.Supp.1981 and § 208.110, RSMo 1978.”
Collins v. Div. of Welfare, 270 S.W.2d 817 (Mo. 1954).
· cites it 2× “” Section 208.100 provides that any applicant aggrieved by the action of the’Director by the denial of benefits may appeal to the circuit court.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 208.100(1) — 2 cases
Hohensee v. Div. of Med. Servs., 135 S.W.3d 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“On appeal, DMS argues the trial court erred in reversing the decision of the Director of DMS because (1) the court’s review was improper under Section 208.100 RSMo, *514 2000, 1 and (2) the Director’s decision was based on competent and substantial evidence as required by…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 208.100(3) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 208.100(4) — 4 cases
Powers v. State Dept. of Pub. Health & Welfare, 359 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
“) Section 208.100 RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. provides in part, that on appeal, "If the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this law was not granted the individual by said director, or that his decision…”
Hohensee v. Div. of Med. Servs., 135 S.W.3d 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“On appeal, DMS argues the trial court erred in reversing the decision of the Director of DMS because (1) the court’s review was improper under Section 208.100 RSMo, *514 2000, 1 and (2) the Director’s decision was based on competent and substantial evidence as required by…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 208.100(5) — 17 cases
Ellis v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 277 S.W.2d 331 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
“, “(A) Identifying Information,”- “(B) Social Information,” and “(C) Certification of Medical Review Team,” in precisely the same language as that of Dr. Engelhardt’s '“certification”, that claimant' was not physically or mentálly - incapacitated.”
Garrard v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 375 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
“" But, regardless of whether the Director considered these exhibits, their erroneous reception in evidence did not, in and of itself, demonstrate that claimant was not granted "a fair hearing" within the contemplation and meaning of Section 208.100(5). And upon judicial review…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.