BETTY McCRACKEN, Respondent, vs. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.
Decision date: June 24, 2013SD32368
Opinion
BETTY McCRACKEN, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32368 ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) FILED: June 24, 2013 ) Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BARRY COUNTY Honorable Robert J. Foulke, Judge REVERSED
A physician advised the Director of Revenue that Betty McCracken, age 82, no longer could drive safely. 1 The Director notified Ms. McCracken that her driving privilege would be revoked unless she offered contrary evidence. She did not comply and her license was revoked.
1 The report stated in pertinent part: I am the primary care physician for the above referenced Betty McCracken. It is my medical opinion that due to chronic and irreversible medical conditions, she is no longer safely able to operate a motor vehicle. State law contemplates and authorizes such reports notwithstanding any physician- patient privilege. See § 302.291.3 & .4 RSMo, as amended through 2011.
She successfully petitioned the circuit court to set aside the revocation, alleging that the Director lacked "good cause" to believe Ms. McCracken could not safely operate a motor vehicle. The Director appeals. Our review is de novo. "Whether the Director's determination of good cause had an adequate basis is a question of law." Leaton v. Director of Revenue, 187 S.W.3d 894, 896 (Mo.App. 2006). We reverse. Under case law and by statute, the Director may rely on a physician's report setting forth facts "from which a reasonable person could believe that [the Director] should exercise the discretion granted by section 302.291." Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 896; see also § 302.291.3. "Under the statute, as a matter of law, good cause exists where the record contains a report from a law enforcement officer, physician or family member stating that the driver cannot safely operate a motor vehicle." Leaton, 187 S.W.3d at 897 (our emphasis). Leaton supports the Director's claim of good cause for her action. We are offered no argument to the contrary. 2 Judgment reversed.
DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. — OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, J. — CONCURS DON E. BURRELL, C.J. — CONCURS
2 Ms. McCracken did not file a brief on appeal. There is no penalty for this, but we do not benefit from any arguments she might have made.
Related Opinions
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services vs. Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#WD87223
Motors Insurance Corporation vs. Autobot Towing, LLC(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJuly 8, 2025#WD87590
JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 28, 2025#SD38656
PAUL E. JOKERST, JR. and VERONICA SUE JOKERST, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. RONALD HUCKABY and DIANE M. HUCKABY, Defendants-Appellants and F & C BANK, Defendant-Respondent(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictApril 3, 2025#SD38462
David P. Oetting, Appellant, v. City of Ladue, et al., Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 11, 2025#ED112717