Albrecht v. JAMES FLYING SERVICE, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Albrecht v. JAMES FLYING SERVICE, INC.

228 S.W.3d 58, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 982, 2007 WL 1855674

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2007

DocketED 89731

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 S.W.3d 58 (Albrecht v. JAMES FLYING SERVICE, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albrecht v. JAMES FLYING SERVICE, INC., 228 S.W.3d 58, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 982, 2007 WL 1855674 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOKER T. SHAW, Chief Judge.

Tammy (Roth) Albrecht (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. The appeal is dismissed.

Claimant applied for unemployment compensation and a deputy with the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work or employer. She appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which reversed the deputy’s decision and awarded her unemployment benefits. Her employer then filed an application for review with the Commission, which reversed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision and concluded she was disqualified. Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal because the notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

In unemployment cases, the notice of appeal to this Court is due within twenty days of the Commission’s decision becoming final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2 RSMo.2000. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on February 26, 2007. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal was due on or before March 28, 2007. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210.

The Commission received Claimant’s notice of appeal in an envelope postmarked May 16, 2007. The notice of appeal is deemed filed on that date. Section 288.240 RSMo.2000. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely. Claimant’s notice of appeal stated that she did not receive the Commission’s decision in a timely fashion. However, the unemployment statutes do not provide any exceptions for a late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely and its untimeliness deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Brendel v. Union Elec. Co., 201 S.W.3d 569, 570 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

GLENN A. NORTON, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BOOKER T. SHAW, Chief Judge.

Tammy (Roth) Albrecht (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. The appeal is dismissed.

Claimant applied for unemployment compensation and a deputy with the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work or employer. She appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which reversed the deputy’s decision and awarded her unemployment benefits. Her employer then filed an application for review with the Commission, which reversed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision and concluded she was disqualified. Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal because the notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

In unemployment cases, the notice of appeal to this Court is due within twenty days of the Commission’s decision becoming final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2 RSMo.2000. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on February 26, 2007. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal was due on or before March 28, 2007. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210.

The Commission received Claimant’s notice of appeal in an envelope postmarked May 16, 2007. The notice of appeal is deemed filed on that date. Section 288.240 RSMo.2000. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely. Claimant’s notice of appeal stated that she did not receive the Commission’s decision in a timely fashion. However, the unemployment statutes do not provide any exceptions for a late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely and its untimeliness deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Brendel v. Union Elec. Co., 201 S.W.3d 569, 570 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

GLENN A. NORTON, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 58, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 982, 2007 WL 1855674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albrecht-v-james-flying-service-inc-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack