Breeden v. Gainey Transportation

Missouri Court of Appeals

Breeden v. Gainey Transportation

125 S.W.3d 350, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2004 WL 51206

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83692

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.W.3d 350 (Breeden v. Gainey Transportation) 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

Breeden v. Gainey Transportation, 125 S.W.3d 350, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2004 WL 51206 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

David Breeden (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

[351]*351A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits and had quit his employment for good cause attributable to his work. Claimant’s employer appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. After a hearing, the Appeals Tribunal reversed the deputy’s determination and disqualified Claimant from receiving unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on July 80, 2003.

Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission on September 15, 2003. The Commission denied the application for review because it was untimely under Section 288.200.¹ Claimant now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division argues that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200.1 provides a claimant with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision on July 30, 2003. Claimant’s application for review was due on August 29, 2003. Thus, Claimant’s application for review filed on September 15, 2003 was untimely.

Claimant’s failure to file his application for review in a timely fashion with the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Bass v. Yong Min Kim, 101 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Section 288.200 provides no mechanism for filing a late application for review with the Commission and the procedures are mandatory. McAtee v. BioMedical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., concur.

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

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

David Breeden (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

[351]*351A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits and had quit his employment for good cause attributable to his work. Claimant’s employer appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. After a hearing, the Appeals Tribunal reversed the deputy’s determination and disqualified Claimant from receiving unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on July 80, 2003.

Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission on September 15, 2003. The Commission denied the application for review because it was untimely under Section 288.200.¹ Claimant now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division argues that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200.1 provides a claimant with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision on July 30, 2003. Claimant’s application for review was due on August 29, 2003. Thus, Claimant’s application for review filed on September 15, 2003 was untimely.

Claimant’s failure to file his application for review in a timely fashion with the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Bass v. Yong Min Kim, 101 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Section 288.200 provides no mechanism for filing a late application for review with the Commission and the procedures are mandatory. McAtee v. BioMedical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.3d 350, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 24, 2004 WL 51206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breeden-v-gainey-transportation-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack