Davis v. ADECCO USA

232 S.W.3d 674, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2007 WL 2593528
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 11, 2007
DocketED 90007
StatusPublished

This text of 232 S.W.3d 674 (Davis v. ADECCO USA) 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
Davis v. ADECCO USA, 232 S.W.3d 674, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2007 WL 2593528 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Randy Davis (Claimant) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision dismissing his application for review regarding his claim for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security (Division) has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

We agree with the Division that Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. In unemployment appeals, the claimant must file the notice of appeal to this Court from the Commission’s decision within twenty days of the 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 May 14, 2007. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on June 13, 2007. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed his notice of appeal to the Commission in an envelope postmarked on July 17, 2007, and it is deemed filed on that date under section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely.

Section 288.210 makes no allowance for the filing of a late 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 to entertain the appeal and we must dismiss it. Garcia v. Midtown Home Improvements, Inc., 165 S.W.3d 561, 562 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

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

BOOKER T. SHAW and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Phillips v. Clean-Tech
34 S.W.3d 854 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Garcia v. Midtown Home Improvements, Inc.
165 S.W.3d 561 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 S.W.3d 674, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1248, 2007 WL 2593528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-adecco-usa-moctapp-2007.