Blanchard v. Shurn & Associates, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blanchard v. Shurn & Associates, Inc.

209 S.W.3d 22, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1835, 2006 WL 3486986

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

DocketED 88810

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 S.W.3d 22 (Blanchard v. Shurn & Associates, 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

Blanchard v. Shurn & Associates, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 22, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1835, 2006 WL 3486986 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOKER T. SHAW, Chief Judge.

Patricia Blanchard (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review regarding her unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) denied Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal, which concluded that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged due to misconduct connected with her work. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed the application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. The Division asserts that her application for review to the Commission was untimely and thus, the Commission and this Court are without jurisdiction to review her case. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

In unemployment matters, an aggrieved party has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to *24 file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. The statute sets forth no exceptions to the thirty-day requirement and the failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D.2003).

Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on March 21, 2006. The application for review was due thirty days later, on April 20, 2006. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed her application for review on August 31, 2006, over four months too late, and it was untimely under section 288.200.1. Without a timely application for review, the Commission had no jurisdiction over Claimant’s case. This Court’s jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Brown, 105 S.W.3d at 855; Truel v. Division of Employment Security, 166 S.W.3d 131, 132 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

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

GLENN A. NORTON and PATRICIA L. COHEN, JJ., Concur.

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

BOOKER T. SHAW, Chief Judge.

Patricia Blanchard (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review regarding her unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) denied Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal, which concluded that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged due to misconduct connected with her work. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed the application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. The Division asserts that her application for review to the Commission was untimely and thus, the Commission and this Court are without jurisdiction to review her case. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

In unemployment matters, an aggrieved party has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to *24 file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. The statute sets forth no exceptions to the thirty-day requirement and the failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D.2003).

Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on March 21, 2006. The application for review was due thirty days later, on April 20, 2006. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed her application for review on August 31, 2006, over four months too late, and it was untimely under section 288.200.1. Without a timely application for review, the Commission had no jurisdiction over Claimant’s case. This Court’s jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Brown, 105 S.W.3d at 855; Truel v. Division of Employment Security, 166 S.W.3d 131, 132 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

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

GLENN A. NORTON and PATRICIA L. COHEN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.W.3d 22, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1835, 2006 WL 3486986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-shurn-associates-inc-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack