Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant v. Exel, Inc. and Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant v. Exel, Inc. and Division of Employment Security

449 S.W.3d 826, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 2014

DocketED102004

StatusPublished

This text of 449 S.W.3d 826 (Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant v. Exel, Inc. and 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

Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant v. Exel, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, 449 S.W.3d 826, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE

Claimant, Gary Warfield, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision concerning his claim for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed to both the Appeals Tribunal of the Division and then to the Commission, which both affirmed the disqualification. The Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on July 30, 2014. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. The Division contends that Claimant’s notice of appeal to this court was not filed within the time limits set forth in section 288.210, RSMo 2000, which provides: ‘Within twenty days after a decision of the commission has become final, the director or any party aggrieved by such decision may appeal the decision to the appellate court....” The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Secretary to the Commission certified she mailed its decision to Claimant on July 30, 2014. Under Chapter 288, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before August 29, 2014. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed his notice of appeal to the Commission, and the date endorsed on the envelope by the United States post office is September 10, 2014. Under section 288.240, RSMo 2000, when a notice of appeal is mailed to the Commission, it is “deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope_” Here, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on September 10, 2014. However, the notice of appeal is still untimely.

The unemployment statutes fail to provide a procedure for filing a late notice of appeal. Ross v. Division of Employment Sec., 332 S.W.3d 922 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). While there are procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not apply to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288. Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). Therefore, this court’s only option is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

LISA VAN AMBURG, J. and PHILIP M. HESS, J„ Concurs.

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

ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE

Claimant, Gary Warfield, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision concerning his claim for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed to both the Appeals Tribunal of the Division and then to the Commission, which both affirmed the disqualification. The Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on July 30, 2014. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. The Division contends that Claimant’s notice of appeal to this court was not filed within the time limits set forth in section 288.210, RSMo 2000, which provides: ‘Within twenty days after a decision of the commission has become final, the director or any party aggrieved by such decision may appeal the decision to the appellate court....” The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Secretary to the Commission certified she mailed its decision to Claimant on July 30, 2014. Under Chapter 288, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before August 29, 2014. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed his notice of appeal to the Commission, and the date endorsed on the envelope by the United States post office is September 10, 2014. Under section 288.240, RSMo 2000, when a notice of appeal is mailed to the Commission, it is “deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope_” Here, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on September 10, 2014. However, the notice of appeal is still untimely.

The unemployment statutes fail to provide a procedure for filing a late notice of appeal. Ross v. Division of Employment Sec., 332 S.W.3d 922 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). While there are procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not apply to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288. Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). Therefore, this court’s only option is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

LISA VAN AMBURG, J. and PHILIP M. HESS, J„ Concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 S.W.3d 826, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-warfield-claimantappellant-v-exel-inc-and-division-of-employment-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack