The administrative law judge concluded that the, "entire argument over what was retained in the Division's file is a red herring." Nothing could be further from the truth. The determination of whether employee's claim is barred by $\S 287.430$ RSMo depends upon whether the Division carried out its ministerial duties in this matter and whether the Division exceeded its statutory authority in returning employee's original Claim for Compensation without filing it.
Section 287.430 provides in relevant part:
Except for a claim for recovery filed against the second injury fund, no proceedings for compensation under this chapter shall be maintained unless a claim therefor is filed with the division within two years after the date of injury or death, or the last payment made under this chapter on account of the injury or death, except that if the report of the injury or the death is not filed by the employer as required by section 287.380, the claim for compensation may be filed within three years after the date of injury, death, or last payment made under this chapter on account of the injury or death.
Employer never filed a report of injury so the three year filing period is applicable in this case.
The Division's act of rejecting employee's April 24, 2003, Claim for Compensation violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the Workers' Compensation Law. This matter can be disposed by reference to two statutory provisions.
Section 287.550 RSMo provides:
All proceedings before the commission or any commissioner shall be simple, informal and summary, and without regard to the technical rules of evidence, and no defect or irregularity therein shall invalidate the same. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all such proceedings shall be according to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the commission. (Emphasis added).
Section 287.800 RSMo provides:
All of the provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed with a view to the public welfare, and a substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient to give effect to rules, regulations, requirements, awards, orders or decisions of the division and the commission, and they shall not be declared inoperative, illegal or void for any omission of a technical nature in respect thereto. (Emphasis added.)
The record before us establishes that employee filed a Claim for Compensation on a version of the Division's form WC-21. Although the Division would have preferred a new form, employee substantially complied with the provisions of $\S 287.420 RSMo. The Division violated \S 287.800$ RSMo by rejecting the April 24, 2003, claim because the rejection had the effect of declaring the claim inoperative, illegal or void due to what the Division perceived was an omission of a technical nature - not using the most up-to-date form provided by the Division. See Graves v. O. F. Elliott, Inc., 197 S.W.2d 977 (Mo. 1946). The problems do not end there.
The Division's own regulation provides that claims on outdated forms will be processed. Division rule 8 CSR 50-2.020(5) (A) provides that, "[d]ivision forms must be submitted as an original document in the most current version. If a claim or answer to a claim is filed on an outdated form the division will process the claim or
answer, but may request the filing party to submit the form in the most current version." It was the Division, through Toby Graham, that failed to comply with its own regulation by failing to process the claim.
The act of rejecting a document intended to be a claim for compensation is the act of ruling on the claim. Only an administrative law judge has the authority to issue a ruling on the validity of a claim for compensation. See § 287.450 RSMo. Unless Toby Graham was an administrative law judge - and his letter does not suggest he is - Mr. Graham had no authority to determine employee's April 23, 2003, claim was invalid.
The form letter sent by Toby Graham was ambiguous in its request of employee. Nine of the ten options listed request a correction to the original form the Division is returning. Only the outdated form option requires a completely new form. "Please return the original form with noted corrections," is a clear instruction for how to complete a form that is missing information. It makes little sense when an entirely new claim on a different form is needed.
Due process mandates that employee be given notice and an opportunity to be heard by an administrative law judge before his claim is ruled invalid. See Cox Health Sys. v. Div. of Workers' Comp. of the Dep't of Labor \& Indus. Rels., 190 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. App. 2006) (Division cannot summarily reject applications by health care providers for direct payment where the authority to hear the applications lies with the administrative law judge).
The Division erred in failing to retain employee's April 24, 2003, Claim for Compensation in its files. Section 287.650.2(2) mandates that the Division keep such records for a minimum of ten years.
Records in cases that are submitted for hearing in the division shall include all documentary exhibits admitted as evidence at the hearing. Records in all other cases shall include all documents required to be filed with the division by this chapter or by rule of the division, medical reports or records which are relied upon by the administrative law judge or legal advisor in approving the compromise lump sum settlement, and copies of the compromise lump sum settlement. These records shall be kept and stored by the division for a minimum of ten years and shall include the originals or duplicate originals stored by electronic or other means approved by the division.
No clerk or bureaucrat employed by the Division of Workers' Compensation has the authority to determine the validity of claims. The Division of Workers' Compensation is required by law to maintain each record submitted to it pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law. If there is any question about the validity of a claim, the matter should be decided by an administrative law judge.