Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) are reviewable by the supreme court on certiorari.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471 (2014).  To effect review upon certiorari, the writ of certiorari issued by the Clerk of Appellate Courts and a cost bond must be served upon the administrator of the WCCA within 30 days from service of notice of the decision.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subds. 1, 3 (stating that to “effect a review upon certiorari” the party seeking review “shall serve a writ of certiorari and a bond upon the administrator of the [WCCA] within the 30-day period referred to in subdivision 1”).

Relators Cargill Kitchen Solutions and its insurer, New Hampshire Insurance Company (“Cargill”), seek review of a decision of the WCCA served and filed on March 17, 2015.  The deadline to “effect . . . review,” Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3, was April 16, 2015.  Id., subd. 1.  On April 14, 2015, Cargill filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari, a proposed Writ of Certiorari, and a Statement of the Case with the Clerk of Appellate Courts; the WCCA was served with these papers on the same day.  Cargill did not, however, serve a bond on the WCCA administrator, as required by Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3, until May 8, 2015.  Cargill therefore asks the court to “accept[] the cost bond served on the [WCCA] on May 8, 2015.”  For the reasons explained below, Cargill’s motion is denied and the writ is discharged.

To obtain review by this court, a party must, among other things, “serve a writ of certiorari and a bond upon the” WCCA administrator within the 30-day appeal period.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3; see also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.01, 116.03, subd. 2 (requiring “issuance of a writ of certiorari” and filing of “the bond or other security required by statute”).  For cause shown within the 30-day appeal period, this court may “extend the time for seeking review.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 2.  The court may also “extend the time for filing any other paper which the chapter requires to be filed with” this court.  Id.  Thus, the deadline for seeking an extension of time “[t]o effect . . . review” also expired on April 16, 2015.

Statutes providing for appeals to this court from an agency such as the WCCA have been strictly construed.  See, e.g., Kearns v. Julette Originals Dress Co., 267 Minn. 278, 282, 126 N.W.2d 266, 269 (1964) (noting the court has “consistently held that time limitations placed on appeals . . . are mandatory”).  In addition to the statutory filing deadlines, service of the writ and the cost bond upon the WCCA are statutory requirements.  See Nelson v. Krause, 201 Minn. 123, 125, 275 N.W. 624, 625 (1937) (noting this court can act on a compensation proceeding upon the filing of the bond); cf. State ex rel. Ryan v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 278 Minn. 296, 297, 301, 154 N.W.2d 192, 194, 196 (1967) (holding that discharge of writ of certiorari is required where it was not endorse by surety as required by general certiorari statute).

Cargill concedes that the administrator of the WCCA was not served with the cost bond required by Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3, until May 8, 2015.  Cargill explains that the cost bond was not served on the WCCA because a 2014 amendment to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 107.01 states that “[n]o cost bond is required for any appeal, unless ordered by the trial court on motion and for good cause shown.”  The cost bond required in an appeal from a decision of the WCCA, however, is established by statute.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3.  In addition, Rule  116 of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, which governs appeals from the WCCA, requires filing of “the bond or other security required by statute.”  Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 2.  We need not decide whether the amendment to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 107.01 creates a conflict with the bond requirement in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 2, because timely service of the bond on the WCCA administrator is a statutory requirement for obtaining review of the WCCA’s decision.  See Minn. Stat. Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3.  The amendment to the court’s procedural rules did not affect this statutory requirement.

Nor can we accept proof of the late service of the cost bond.  The circumstances in which we can grant an extension of time to obtain review by certiorari are narrow.  An extension of “the time for seeking reivew on certiorari” may be granted for “cause” shown “within the 30-day period” from “the date the party was served with notice of the order” to be reviewed.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subds. 1-2.  Without deciding whether Cargill has shown cause, the extension of time for service of the cost bond was not requested “within the 30-day period,” or by April 16, 2015.  Further, the authority granted to this court for an extension of time for “any paper required” to be filed in this court is, by its plain terms, limited to “filing.”  Id., subd. 2.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion of Relators Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc., and its insurer New Hampshire Insurance Company for an order accepting the cost bond served on the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals on May 8, 2015, be, and the same is, denied.

2.  The writ of certiorari in the above-entitled matter is discharged for failure to timely serve the cost bond on the administrator of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, and the appeal is dismissed.