ADAM STREGE, Relator, v. COMMERCIAL DRYWALL and FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents, and CUSTOM DRYWALL, Respondent, and OPUS GROUP, Respondent.

SUPREME COURT – DECEMBER 12, 2024
No. A24-1528
WCCA No. WC24-6565

Considered without oral argument.

ORDER

HUDSON, Chief Justice

This appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) was filed on September 23, 2024, by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1 (2022) (directing the party seeking review to “act[] within 30 days” of when the WCCA decision was served on the party 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 petition sought review of a WCCA order dismissing relator’s petition to vacate, which is stamped as served and filed on September 20, 2024.  That WCCA order included notice that “[a]ny party dissatisfied with this decision may appeal it to the Minnesota Supreme Court within 30 days of the date the decision was served.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.471 for information about what steps are required to file an appeal.”

On November 8, 2024, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that it is untimely, as well as arguing that the appeal fails on the merits.  As to timeliness, respondents assert that relator failed to timely file and serve the executed writ of certiorari and failed to file proof of service.

Minnesota Statutes section 176.471 governs review by the supreme court on certiorari of decisions by the WCCA and makes clear that a party must seek to “have the order reviewed by the supreme court on certiorari,” and must do so “within 30 days from the date the party was served with notice of the order.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1.  To effect review upon certiorari, the writ of certiorari must be issued by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and be served upon the administrator of the WCCA within 30 days from service of notice of the decision.  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3 (2022) (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 1”).  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, 435–36 (Minn. 2016) (recognizing the “long-established principle that we adhere strictly to the statutory requirements for appeals from an executive branch agency” and a “series of orders dismissing certiorari appeals for failure to comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.471”); Kearns v. Julette Originals Dress Co., 126 N.W.2d 266, 269 (Minn. 1964) (noting that “many statutes providing for appeals from… an agency to the court, have been strictly construed”).  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 at 3 (Minn. filed June 25, 2013) (discharging a writ of certiorari for 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 at 2 (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 at 2 (Minn. filed June 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 as well as upon all other parties and the Attorney General.  See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 4.  “Proof of service shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate courts within 7 days of service.”  Id.

Here, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts issued the writ of certiorari to relator on September 25, 2024.  See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 3.  In addition, on the same day, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts sent relator a Notice of Case Filing, which reminded relator that “[t]he issued writ of certiorari has been sent to you electronically,” and to “[p]lease make necessary copies for service and file proof of service with our office once completed.”  According to our records, as of the date of this order, relator has not filed proof of service.

The writ must be discharged for failure to timely serve the writ upon respondents or the WCCA.  Service of the writ upon the WCCA was required within the same 30-day time period in which the writ was required to issue.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 3.  This service is required “[t]o effect a review upon certiorari.”  Id.  The governing rules likewise require service upon the other parties and the Attorney General at the same time.  Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 4.  Here, the writ issued on September 25, 2024.  While relator has filed numerous motions regarding this matter since the writ issued—each of which was accompanied by a proof of service—as of the date of this order, no proof of service has been filed regarding the required timely service of the executed writ to effectuate the appeal.  The writ thus must be discharged because service of the writ of certiorari is a statutory requirement for obtaining review of WCCA decisions and no proof of service has been filed.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss this appeal 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 respondents, and the appeal is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions filed by relator in the above-captioned matter are dismissed as moot.


[1]  Although it does not impact our analysis, we note that relator was aware of both the requirement for timely service of the executed writ and the consequence for failure to do so. Relator has petitioned the WCCA to vacate prior findings on two other occasions, and in both instances then sought to appeal the WCCA’s decision to this court.  In relator’s first appeal, relator similarly failed to file proof of service that he timely served the executed writ upon respondents or the WCCA.  We dismissed the appeal on that basis.  Strege v. Commercial Drywall, No. A22-1740, Order (Minn. filed Jan. 30, 2023).  In his second appeal, relator did file timely proof of service of the executed writ.  That appeal proceeded to a disposition by this court on the merits.  See Strege v. Commercial Drywall, Inc., No. A23-1741, Order (Minn. filed May 30, 2024) (affirming without opinion).