Fortenberry v. Division of Employment Security
This text of 265 S.W.3d 360 (Fortenberry 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.
Opinion
Ike Fortenberry (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing his application for review of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision to deny him unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.
A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to his work or employer. Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy’s determination. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed it as untimely. Claimant now appeals to this Court.
The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. The Division asserts that Claimant’s late application for review to the Commission deprived both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Claimant has not filed a response.
A claimant has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on June 4, 2008. The application for review was due thirty days later, on Monday, July 7, 2008. Section 288.200.1; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant faxed the application for review to the Commission on July 11, 2008, which was untimely under section 288.200.1.
There are no exceptions in the unemployment statutes to the thirty-day filing requirement. Filing a timely application for review, therefore, is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and this Court. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it.
The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
265 S.W.3d 360, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1326, 2008 WL 4402889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortenberry-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2008.