Dhar v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dhar v. Division of Employment Security

113 S.W.3d 694, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2003 WL 22047785

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 2003

DocketNo. ED 83120

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.W.3d 694 (Dhar v. Division of Employment Security) 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

Dhar v. Division of Employment Security, 113 S.W.3d 694, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2003 WL 22047785 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Raj Dhar (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) regarding her unemployment benefits. Because we find Claimant’s notice of appeal untimely, we dismiss her appeal.

Claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A deputy determined she was an insured worker for purposes of unemployment, but concluded her benefit year began on February 9, 2003. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, because she sought unemployment benefits from December 29, 2002 until January 14, 2003. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal after she failed to respond to a notice for a telephone hearing. Claimant filed a timely application for review with the Commission, which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant now appeals to this Court. The Division of Employment Security (Division) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has failed to file a response.

Section 288.210¹ provides an aggrieved party twenty days to appeal the Commission’s decision after it becomes final. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after the date it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on May 22, 2003. The Commission’s decision became final ten days later and the notice of appeal was due Monday, June 23, 2003. Section 288.210; Section 288.240. Claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission by facsimile as allowed by 8 C.S.R. 20-2.010(5) on June 26, 2003, and was untimely.

In employment security cases, an untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Poole v. Adecco North America L.L.C.,. 93 S.W.3d 850 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Furthermore, 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). Neither Section 288.200 nor Section 288.210 provides a mechanism for [695]*695seeking a special order to file a late notice of appeal. Poole, 93 S.W.3d at 850; McCuin Phillips v. Chan-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

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

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

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

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Raj Dhar (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) regarding her unemployment benefits. Because we find Claimant’s notice of appeal untimely, we dismiss her appeal.

Claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A deputy determined she was an insured worker for purposes of unemployment, but concluded her benefit year began on February 9, 2003. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, because she sought unemployment benefits from December 29, 2002 until January 14, 2003. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal after she failed to respond to a notice for a telephone hearing. Claimant filed a timely application for review with the Commission, which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant now appeals to this Court. The Division of Employment Security (Division) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has failed to file a response.

Section 288.210¹ provides an aggrieved party twenty days to appeal the Commission’s decision after it becomes final. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after the date it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on May 22, 2003. The Commission’s decision became final ten days later and the notice of appeal was due Monday, June 23, 2003. Section 288.210; Section 288.240. Claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission by facsimile as allowed by 8 C.S.R. 20-2.010(5) on June 26, 2003, and was untimely.

In employment security cases, an untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Poole v. Adecco North America L.L.C.,. 93 S.W.3d 850 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Furthermore, 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). Neither Section 288.200 nor Section 288.210 provides a mechanism for [695]*695seeking a special order to file a late notice of appeal. Poole, 93 S.W.3d at 850; McCuin Phillips v. Chan-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.W.3d 694, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2003 WL 22047785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dhar-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack