Harrison v. Don Darr Pontiac, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harrison v. Don Darr Pontiac, Inc.

199 S.W.3d 914, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 2472825

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2006

DocketNo. ED 88437

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.W.3d 914 (Harrison v. Don Darr Pontiac, Inc.) 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

Harrison v. Don Darr Pontiac, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 914, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 2472825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOKER T. SHAW, C.J.

Lisa Harrison (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review regarding her unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

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 also denied unemployment benefits. Claimant then filed an applica[915]*915tion for review with the Commission, which dismissed the application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

In unemployment matters, an aggrieved party 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. The statute sets forth no exceptions to the thirty-day requirement and 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).

The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on May 4, 2006. The application for review was due thirty days later, on June 5, 2006. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed her application for review on June 19, 2006, and it was untimely.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Claimant has not filed a response. The statutes fail to provide any mechanism for allowing an untimely application for review in an unemployment case. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). The lateness of the application for review automatically deprives the Commission, and ultimately this Court, of jurisdiction over the merits of her case. Truel v. Division of Employment Security, 166 S.W.3d 131, 132 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Moore v. Northview Village, Inc., 125 S.W.3d 347, 348 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

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

GLENN A. NORTON, and PATRICIA L. COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

BOOKER T. SHAW, C.J.

Lisa Harrison (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review regarding her unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

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 also denied unemployment benefits. Claimant then filed an applica[915]*915tion for review with the Commission, which dismissed the application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.

In unemployment matters, an aggrieved party 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. The statute sets forth no exceptions to the thirty-day requirement and 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).

The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on May 4, 2006. The application for review was due thirty days later, on June 5, 2006. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed her application for review on June 19, 2006, and it was untimely.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Claimant has not filed a response. The statutes fail to provide any mechanism for allowing an untimely application for review in an unemployment case. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). The lateness of the application for review automatically deprives the Commission, and ultimately this Court, of jurisdiction over the merits of her case. Truel v. Division of Employment Security, 166 S.W.3d 131, 132 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Moore v. Northview Village, Inc., 125 S.W.3d 347, 348 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

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

GLENN A. NORTON, and PATRICIA L. COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.W.3d 914, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 2472825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-don-darr-pontiac-inc-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack