Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY The Ho norable Jon E.
Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton and
Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges
WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE
Troupe appeals from the circuit court's order enforcing
the Administrative Hearing Commission's ("AHC")
order compelling him to submit to a mental examination.
Troupe contends the court erred in enforcing the AHC's
order because the AHC's order was entered without good
cause shown and did not set out the manner, conditions, or
scope of the mental examination. Because there is no
statutory right to an immediate appeal from the circuit
court's order in this case, the appeal is dismissed.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
is a licensed peace officer with the Clay County
Sheriff's Department. In August 2015, the Director of the
Department of Public Safety ("Director") filed a
complaint in the AHC for discipline of Troupe's license.
In the complaint, the Director alleged that he had cause to
discipline Troupe's license pursuant to Section
590.080.1(1). Section 590.080.1(1) provides that the
Director has cause to discipline any peace officer licensee
who "[i]s unable to perform the functions of a peace
officer with reasonable competency or reasonable safety as a
result of a mental condition."
Director alleged that Troupe began exhibiting paranoid
delusions in 2011. These paranoid delusions include, but are
not limited to, "his belief that tracking devices have
been put on his clothing, vehicle, and inside his body and
that various governmental agencies are out to get him."
The Director asserted that Troupe's paranoid delusions
have progressed over time. The Director further alleged that
Troupe's paranoid delusions make him unable to perform
the functions of a peace officer with reasonable competency
or reasonable safety.
Director filed a motion for summary decision with the AHC.
The AHC denied the motion in October 2016. In its order
denying the motion, the AHC found that Dr. Robert Urie, a
psychologist who completed seven fitness-for-duty evaluations
on Troupe between March 2011 and March 2015, could not
recommend that Troupe return to duty in March 2015 and could
not predict when or if it would be possible for Troupe to
return to duty. The AHC also found that Troupe admitted to
holding "highly eccentric" beliefs about being
listened to and tracked by the government and others.
Nevertheless, the AHC concluded that this evidence, by
itself, was insufficient to establish that Troupe was unable
to perform the functions of a peace officer.
the AHC denied his motion for summary decision, the Director
moved the AHC to issue an order, pursuant to Rule 60.01,
compelling Troupe to undergo a mental examination. In June
2017, the AHC granted the motion, finding that Troupe's
mental condition was in controversy and that good cause
existed to order the examination. Specifically, the AHC found
that Troupe's mental condition was a central issue in the
case and that Troupe had claimed privilege over his
fitness-for-duty evaluations by Dr. Urie. Therefore, the AHC
ordered that Troupe submit to a mental examination by Dr.
George Harris at a time agreed upon by the parties. The AHC
further ordered that the scope of examination would be
limited to whether Troupe is able to perform the functions of
a peace officer with reasonable competency as a result of a
mental condition, and the examination would be limited to one
day in length, except upon good cause shown and by further
order of the AHC.
Director then filed a petition in the circuit court of Cole
County, pursuant to Section 536.073.2, to enforce the
AHC's order for a mental examination. Section 536.073.2
provides that, in contested cases before an agency, parties
may obtain discovery, and the agency may enforce discovery,
in the same manner as provided by the Supreme Court Rules in
civil actions in the circuit court. However, where the agency
enters a discovery order requiring a physical or mental
examination, such order is enforceable only "upon order
of the circuit court of the county in which the hearing will
be held or the circuit court of Cole County at the option of
the person seeking enforcement, after notice and
hearing." § 536.073.2(1).
response to the Director's petition, Troupe filed an
answer challenging that the AHC had good cause to order the
mental examination and disputing that the AHC's order
specified the manner, conditions, and scope of the
examination. After reviewing the parties' exhibits and
hearing arguments from counsel, the court entered an order
finding that the AHC's order compelling Troupe to submit
to a mental examination complied with Rule 60.01 and,
therefore, was enforceable. The court ordered Troupe to
submit to the mental examination. Troupe appeals.
OF CIRCUIT COURT'S ORDER
we can reach the merits of Troupe's points on appeal, we
must first address the Director's assertion that the
circuit court's order is not a final judgment or
appealable order and, therefore, the appeal must be
dismissed. We have a duty to determine whether we have the
authority to review a matter on appeal. Matter of N.S.M.
v. McShannon, 523 S.W.3d 584, 588 (Mo. App. 2017).
"In Missouri, the right to appeal is purely statutory,
and where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right
exists." Shoate v. State, 529 S.W.3d 869, 876
(Mo. App. 2017) (citation omitted). "An appeal without
statutory sanction confers no authority upon an appellate
court except to enter an order dismissing the appeal."
Id. (citation omitted).
Section 536.073.2 provides for the circuit court to determine
the enforceability of the AHC's discovery order
compelling a mental examination, the statute does not provide
for an immediate appeal of the circuit court's order.
Section 512.020, the statute that enumerates appealable
orders, provides that an appeal is permitted from: (1) an
order granting a new trial; (2) an order refusing to revoke,
modify, or change an interlocutory order appointing a
receiver or receivers or dissolving an injunction; (3) an
order granting or denying class action certification under
certain circumstances; (4) an interlocutory judgment in a
partition action that determines the rights of the parties;
and (5) a final judgment or a special order after final
judgment in a case. The circuit court's order enforcing
the AHC's order compelling ...