Brandes v. Correctional Medical Services

216 S.W.3d 238, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 396, 2007 WL 655506
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 6, 2007
DocketED 89225
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 216 S.W.3d 238 (Brandes v. Correctional Medical Services) 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
Brandes v. Correctional Medical Services, 216 S.W.3d 238, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 396, 2007 WL 655506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

BOOKER T. SHAW, Chief Judge.

Traci Brandes (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits and waiting week credit. The appeal is dismissed.

The Division of Employment Security (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.

Section 288.210 RSMo.2000 provides that the notice of appeal to this Court from the Commission’s decision is due within twenty days of the Commission’s decision becoming final. 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 December 12, 2006. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal was due on January 11, 2007. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210.

The Commission received Claimant’s notice of appeal in an envelope postmarked January 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. The unemployment statutes make no provision for 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, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction and our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal. Watkins v. De Van Sealants, Inc., 194 S.W.3d 873, 874 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

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., concur.

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

Related

Gavranovic v. Norwood Hills Corporation
281 S.W.3d 842 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Jones v. SHILLINGTON BOX CO., LLC
277 S.W.3d 352 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Withrow v. Shining Example Floor Maintenance Co., Inc.
277 S.W.3d 302 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Alfred v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur Operating, LLC
257 S.W.3d 185 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
Edwards v. P & B Real Estate, LLC
243 S.W.3d 499 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 S.W.3d 238, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 396, 2007 WL 655506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandes-v-correctional-medical-services-moctapp-2007.