Attorneys: Mark Olive and Marcia K. Miller, Sieben Carey, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Respondent. Jay T. Hartman, Erin E. Gross, and Kristine Pasowicz Wobig, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff, Johnson, Lane & Feenstra, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota, for Relator.
GILDEA, Chief Justice
This appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) was filed on November 18, 2020, by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1 (2020) (directing the party seeking review to "act within 30 days" after the date of the WCCA decision to "have the order reviewed by the supreme court on certiorari"); see Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.02 (directing the party seeking review to file a petition and a proposed writ of certiorari with the clerk of the appellate courts). The Clerk of the Appellate Courts then issued the writ of certiorari to relators on November 20, 2020. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 3. In addition, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts sent to relators' counsel a Notice of Case Filing, which included a reminder to file proof showing service of the issued writ on the WCCA.
On November 23, 2020, relators filed an affidavit stating that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, among others, was served with a copy of the issued writ; no proof was filed showing that a copy of the issued writ was served on the WCCA. On December 9, 2020, relators filed an amended affidavit of service, which substituted the WCCA for the Clerk of the Appellate Courts as one of the recipients for the service made on November 23, 2020.
Asserting that the WCCA was never served with a copy of the issued writ, on either November 23, 2020, or December 9, 2020, respondent Barbara Bank moves to dismiss this appeal. Relators oppose the motion to dismiss, asserting that a clerical error was made in naming the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on the affidavit of service dated November 23, 2020. Relators further assert that the service made on November 23, 2020, was to the correct address for the WCCA, even if the WCCA was not named as a service recipient. Thus, they assert, service was effectively made on the WCCA on November 23, 2020.
Decisions of the WCCA are reviewable by the supreme court on certiorari. Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1. To effect review upon certiorari, the writ of certiorari issued by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts must be served upon the administrator of the WCCA within 30 days from service of notice of the decision. Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3 (2020) (directing the party seeking review to "serve the writ of certiorari upon the administrator of the [WCCA] within the 30-day period referred to in subdivision l"). We have strictly construed the statutory requirements for appeals by certiorari from an agency such as the WCCA. See, e.g., Dennis v. Salvation Army, 874 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Minn. 2016) (noting the "long-established principle that we adhere strictly to the statutory requirements for appeals from an executive branch agency"); Kearns v. Julette Originals Dress Co., 126 N.W.2d 266, 269 (Minn. 1964) (noting that "we have consistently held that time limitations placed on appeals ... are mandatory"). In addition to the statutory filing deadlines, service of the writ upon the WCCA is a statutory requirement. See, e.g., Larson v. Herberger's (Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.), No. A13-0647, Order (Minn. filed June 25, 2013) (failure to serve respondent employer and the WCCA with a copy of the issued writ); Ek v. Virginia Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. A10-1420, Order (Minn. filed Aug. 27, 2010) (stating that service of the issued writ of certiorari is required and "delivery of the proposed writ of certiorari to the WCCA" did not satisfy the statute); Van Buren v. City of Willmar, No. A10-0939, Order (Minn. filed July 17, 2010) ("No affidavit demonstrating timely service of the issued writ on the WCCA has been filed."). Finally, the appellate rules require service of the issued writ on the agency whose decision is the subject to appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 4. Because timely service of the issued writ of certiorari is a statutory requirement for obtaining review of decisions of the WCCA, and nothing in the record indicates that the issued writ was actually served on the WCCA, the writ must be discharged.
Nor can we excuse the clerical error in naming the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, rather than the WCCA, in serving the issued writ. Relators assert that the correct address for the WCCA was used on the November 23, 2020, affidavit of service. But service must be made on the agency, not to an address at which the service recipient, as well as others who are not intended to be service recipients, are located. After all, service must be made on a specific entity, the WCCA - in fact, a specific person within the WCCA, "the administrator of the" WCCA. Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3. Relators' service on November 23 was specifically directed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, an entity entirely different from the WCCA; and nothing in the record suggests that the November 23 service was also delivered to the WCCA merely because that agency has its office in the same building as the Clerk of the Appellate Courts. Finally, although relators corrected the affidavit of service to identify the WCCA as a service recipient, they did not actually serve the WCCA with the issued writ on December 9, 2020. In the absence of any evidence showing that the WCCA was actually served with the issued writ, the writ must be discharged and the appeal dismissed.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss this appeal be, and the same is, granted. The writ of certiorari in the above-entitled matter is discharged for failure to timely serve the writ upon the WCCA and the appeal is dismissed.
 In opposing the motion to dismiss, relators assert that they were told, after discovering the clerical error on the November 23 Affidavit of Service, that they need not serve the WCCA with the issued writ because it appeared that the "legal filings were proper." The person to whom relators spoke is not an employee in the office of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts or the Minnesota Judicial Branch, does not have access to the appellate courts' case management system, and is not authorized to provide legal advice. We therefore do not consider these allegations.