Brown v. MOCAP, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brown v. MOCAP, INC.

105 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 740, 2003 WL 21146842

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2003

DocketED 82465

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 105 S.W.3d 854 (Brown v. MOCAP, 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

Brown v. MOCAP, INC., 105 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 740, 2003 WL 21146842 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Chief Judge.

The claimant, Timothy R. Brown, appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his application for review as untimely. The respondent, Division of Employment Security, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending this Court is without jurisdiction. The claimant has filed no *855 response to the motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On September 25, 2002, a deputy from the Division of Employment Security concluded that the claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because he left his work without good cause attributable to his work or his employer. The claimant filed a timely appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to respond to a notice for a telephone hearing. The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the claimant on November 1, 2002. The claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission on December 27, 2002. The Commission dismissed the claimant’s application for review because it was untimely.

Section 288.200, RSMo 2000, requires that an application for review to the Commission shall be postmarked or filed within thirty days of the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the claimant on November 1, 2002. Therefore, the claimant’s application for review was due on Monday, December 2, 2002. Section 288.200; section 288.240, RSMo 2000. The claimant’s application for review was not filed until December 27, 2002. Therefore, it was untimely.

The timely filing of an application for review in an administrative case is jurisdictional. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D.2000). The claimant’s failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction. Id, Our jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission and, if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Id. Section 288.200 does not provide for late filing and does not recognize any exceptions for filing out of time. Id. The procedures outlined for appeal by statute in unemployment security cases are mandatory. Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Missouri Div. of Employment Sec., 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.App. W.D.1997).

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J„ concur.

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

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Chief Judge.

The claimant, Timothy R. Brown, appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his application for review as untimely. The respondent, Division of Employment Security, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending this Court is without jurisdiction. The claimant has filed no *855 response to the motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On September 25, 2002, a deputy from the Division of Employment Security concluded that the claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because he left his work without good cause attributable to his work or his employer. The claimant filed a timely appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to respond to a notice for a telephone hearing. The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the claimant on November 1, 2002. The claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission on December 27, 2002. The Commission dismissed the claimant’s application for review because it was untimely.

Section 288.200, RSMo 2000, requires that an application for review to the Commission shall be postmarked or filed within thirty days of the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the claimant on November 1, 2002. Therefore, the claimant’s application for review was due on Monday, December 2, 2002. Section 288.200; section 288.240, RSMo 2000. The claimant’s application for review was not filed until December 27, 2002. Therefore, it was untimely.

The timely filing of an application for review in an administrative case is jurisdictional. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D.2000). The claimant’s failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction. Id, Our jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission and, if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Id. Section 288.200 does not provide for late filing and does not recognize any exceptions for filing out of time. Id. The procedures outlined for appeal by statute in unemployment security cases are mandatory. Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Missouri Div. of Employment Sec., 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.App. W.D.1997).

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 740, 2003 WL 21146842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-mocap-inc-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack