Baker v. Department of Mental Health
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 770
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Baker, a DMH probationary client attendant, poured water on consumer K.T. during a tantrum; DMH charged her with physical abuse and class II neglect and placed her on an employee disqualification list.
- Administrative hearings substantiated abuse and neglect; Baker sought judicial review. The circuit court reversed the agency findings and ordered removal from the disqualification list; this Court affirmed.
- After affirmance, Baker sought attorney fees under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.087 for judicial-review litigation and related proceedings.
- The circuit court awarded Baker $21,683.01 in fees and expenses, applying a $150/hour rate for counsel and citing a "special factor" under § 536.085(4).
- DMH appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) failing to apply required factors in finding DMH not "substantially justified," and (2) awarding fees above the $75 statutory cap without adequate proof of a special factor.
- This Court affirmed that DMH was not substantially justified, but reversed the elevated hourly rate, holding Baker failed to meet the burden to prove a special factor justifying fees above $75/hour; remanded to recalculate and to award fees for this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by finding DMH not "substantially justified" and by failing to make written findings on certain factors | Baker argued she prevailed on judicial review and is entitled to fees unless DMH was substantially justified; the court relied on record-based findings to deny substantial justification | DMH argued the court was required to specifically consider and make written findings about good faith, how facts appeared to DMH when it acted, and investigation thoroughness, and that reversal could not rest on mere fact of Baker's victory | Court rejected DMH’s procedural arguments, held § 536.087 requires evaluation on the agency-record; court’s findings addressed how facts appeared and investigation sufficiency; no presumption from mere loss; Point I denied |
| Whether attorney fees above $75/hour are permitted absent a proved "special factor" under § 536.085(4) | Baker argued special factors existed: two attorneys refused the case, factual complexity, and need for counsel to handle administrative, circuit, and appellate work (including appellate specialization) | DMH argued petitioner must present competent, substantial evidence of a special factor (limited availability of qualified attorneys or distinctive specialized skill) and that Baker’s proof was insufficient | Court held Baker failed to prove a statutory "special factor." Evidence that attorneys declined representation for other reasons, generalized complexity, or that counsel handled both trial and appeal did not satisfy the statutory test. Court reversed award portion based on $150/hr and remanded with $75/hr cap for recalculation |
| Whether fees and expenses for this appeal are recoverable | Baker sought fees for defending the fee award and litigating the appeal | DMH acknowledged fees for defending fee award on appeal may be recoverable if state not substantially justified | Court remanded to trial court to determine/recalculate reasonable fees and expenses incurred in this appeal and add to award |
| Whether trial court’s judicial notice/expertise can substitute for evidentiary proof of a special factor | Baker argued trial court’s expertise and judicial notice supported the finding of limited availability of qualified attorneys | DMH argued judicial notice/expertise cannot replace competent and substantial evidence of a special factor | Majority held trial-court expertise/judicial notice cannot excuse lack of record evidence showing limited availability or distinctive specialized skill; concurrence would have deferred more to trial court expertise |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Department of Mental Health, 344 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2011) (underlying appeal reversing agency decision)
- Pulliam v. State, 96 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2003) (courts may consider how facts appeared to agency and investigation thoroughness in fee decisions)
- Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. Director of Revenue, 47 S.W.3d 346 (Mo. banc 2001) ("substantially justified" means reasonable basis in law and fact; burden on government)
- Dishman v. Joseph, 14 S.W.3d 709 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2000) (substantial justification requires clearly, not marginally, reasonable basis; good faith not required element)
- Sprenger v. Missouri Dep’t of Public Safety, 340 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2010) (market rates or attorneys' unwillingness to accept $75/hr insufficient alone to show a statutory special factor)
- McMahan v. Missouri Dept. of Social Services, 980 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1998) (government bears burden to show substantial justification; trial court must state written reasons for fee decisions)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard of review: competent and substantial evidence on the whole record governs review of administrative-related fee awards)