Edwards v. DISMAS HOUSE OF ST. LOUIS

Missouri Court of Appeals

Edwards v. DISMAS HOUSE OF ST. LOUIS

179 S.W.3d 475, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1887, 2005 WL 3467393

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86959

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 475 (Edwards v. DISMAS HOUSE OF ST. LOUIS) 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

Edwards v. DISMAS HOUSE OF ST. LOUIS, 179 S.W.3d 475, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1887, 2005 WL 3467393 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

GLENN A. NORTON, C.J.

Claimant Davida Edwards appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review in her unemployment case. We dismiss her appeal, because she did not file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion, depriving the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction over her case.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security denied Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy’s decision. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed her application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000, provides a claimant in an unemployment case with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. The statute provides no exceptions to this time requirement. Indeed, the failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In addition, this Court’s jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Id.

The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on June 10, 2005. Her application for review was due thirty days later, on Monday, July 11, 2005. Section 288.200.1; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant filed her application for review almost one month later, on August 8, 2005, and it was untimely. Without a timely application for review, the Commission, and thus, this Court, are without jurisdiction.

We issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. Claimant has not filed a response. As stated, there is no mechanism for allowing an untimely application for review in an unemployment case. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 *476 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

GLENN A. NORTON, C.J.

Claimant Davida Edwards appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review in her unemployment case. We dismiss her appeal, because she did not file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion, depriving the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction over her case.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security denied Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy’s decision. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed her application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000, provides a claimant in an unemployment case with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. The statute provides no exceptions to this time requirement. Indeed, the failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In addition, this Court’s jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Id.

The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on June 10, 2005. Her application for review was due thirty days later, on Monday, July 11, 2005. Section 288.200.1; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant filed her application for review almost one month later, on August 8, 2005, and it was untimely. Without a timely application for review, the Commission, and thus, this Court, are without jurisdiction.

We issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. Claimant has not filed a response. As stated, there is no mechanism for allowing an untimely application for review in an unemployment case. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 *476 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 475, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1887, 2005 WL 3467393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-dismas-house-of-st-louis-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack