 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Snider v. Board of Trustees10/17/1989
As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing November 14, 1989.
LONNIE D. SNIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT BOARD, APPELLEE.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division 2.
Joe B. Reeves, Lawton, for appellant.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen. by William D. LaFortune, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION SUSTAINED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; CASE REMANDED TO OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT BOARD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HODGES, Justice.
Appellant was employed as a police officer with the Lawton Police Department for nearly five years before he was terminated due to a hearing loss which made him physically incapable of performing the regular field duties of a police officer. The appellant had requested that he be assigned to a service position that did not require the capability of performing regular field duties. However, he was told that no such position existed in the Lawton Police Department. On appeal to the City of Lawton Personnel Board (hereinafter City Board) the termination was affirmed.
At the same time that he was appealing to the City Board, the appellant filed a workers' compensation claim and was adjudged to have a binaural hearing loss of 31.75% that arose out of and in the course of employment. As a result of his termination being upheld by the City Board the appellant then made application to the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Board (hereinafter State Board) for a disability pension which was denied due to "insufficient evidence . . . that would show that said hearing loss was incurred while in, and as a consequence of [the appellant's] duty as a police officer for the City of Lawton." An appeal of this ruling to the District Court of Oklahoma County resulted in the State Board's denial being affirmed on the basis of "substantial evidence to support the . . . Administrative Decision . . ." The Court of Appeals reviewed the State Board's denial and the district court's supporting decision and affirmed "in all respects." We granted certiorari.
I.
The first issue appellant raises is that of venue requirements for his appeal to district court. He argues that he properly filed simultaneous appeals to the State Board decision in both Comanche County and Oklahoma County pursuant to 75 O.S. § 318 (2) and 11 O.S. § 50-129 . He then contends that due to his significant contacts in Comanche County and based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the appeal should have been properly set and heard in Comanche County rather than Oklahoma County.
We agree with that portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion finding 11 O.S. 1981 § 50-129 to be a statute of venue setting all appeals to decisions of the State Board in Oklahoma County District Court. When the venue of an action is statutorily authorized in only one county, general venue statutes are inapplicable. Thus, the proper forum is Oklahoma County. Schwartz v. Diehl, 568 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1977).
II.
Appellant's second argument is that the ruling of the State Board was not supported by substantial evidence. Generally, the standard of review to be applied to administrative board decisions is to determine whether or not the order is supported by substantial evidence or affected by error of law committed at the hearing. Oklahoma Park, Inc. v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm.'n, 716 P.2d 666-67 (Okla. 1986); Hum
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|