ADAM STREGE, Relator, v. COMMERCIAL DRYWALL AND FEDERATED MUTUAL INS. CO., Respondents, and CUSTOM DRYWALL, Respondent, and OPUS GROUP, Respondent.

This appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) was filed on December 8, 2022, 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” 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 petition sought review of a WCCA order dismissing relator’s petition to vacate, which is stamped as served and filed on October 27, 2022.  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 January 1, 2023, respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that it is untimely.  Respondents assert that relator failed to timely file his petition for writ, and that relator has also failed to serve respondents with the executed writ and failed to file proof of service.

Relator did not obtain timely review of the WCCA’s order. 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.  Here, relator sought review on November 3, 2022, but did so through a “notice of appeal,” rather than by certiorari.  On November 7, 2022, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts returned the notice of appeal as not filed, explaining that a petition for a writ of certiorari was required, and enclosing all necessary forms for relator’s convenience.  Relator failed to file his petition for a writ of certiorari—or file a motion establishing good cause for an extension—within the 30-day period.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 2 (2022) (“Where cause is shown within the 30-day period referred to in subdivision 1, the supreme court may extend the time for seeking review on certiorari.”).

Notwithstanding that the petition was filed more than 30 days after service of the October 27, 2022 order, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts issued the writ of certiorari to relator on December 9, 2022.  See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 116.03, subd. 3.  In addition, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts sent to relator a Notice of Case Filing, which included a reminder to file proof showing service of the petition and issued writ on the WCCA, the Minnesota Attorney General, and respondents.  According to our records, as of the date of this order, relator has not filed proof of service.

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 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 “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 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.

Because timely issuance of the writ of certiorari is a statutory requirement for obtaining review of decisions of the WCCA, as is timely service of the issued writ, the writ must be discharged.  Although relator attempted to file a notice of appeal within the time frame, the statute is clear that WCCA orders may only be “reviewed by the supreme court on certiorari,” which must be made “within 30 days from the date the party was served with notice of the order.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1.  No petition for a writ of certiorari was filed before the 30-day time period expired, nor was a motion for extension sought during that time, as required by the statute.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.471, subd. 2.  Relator’s certiorari petition was thus untimely filed, and for that reason the writ must be discharged.

Even if we were to construe the writ as having been timely filed, the writ must independently be discharged for failure to 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 December 9, 2022.  On that same day, the Clerk of the Appellate Courts issued a notice of case filing, informing relator that “Proof of service of the petition and writ upon the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals and the Attorney General is required.  Proof of service of the petition, writ, and statement of case on counsel for respondents is required.”  As of the date of this order, no proof of service has been filed.  The writ must also 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 secure the writ and failure to 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.