Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security

476 S.W.3d 297, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 423

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2015

DocketED102630

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 476 S.W.3d 297 (Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant 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

Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security, 476 S.W.3d 297, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE

Claimant, Deborah Bode, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision concerning her 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 the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which dismissed her appeal. The Division then made a determination that Claimant had been overpaid benefits. She appealed that determination to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the Division’s decision. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission seeking review of both decisions. The Commission affirmed the orders of the Appeals tribunal. The Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on January 14, 2015. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Commission has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, contending that it .is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response.

The 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 January 14, 2015. Under Chapter 288, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before February 13, 2015. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed the notice of appeal to the Commission on February 19, 2015. Thus, the notice of appeal is 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 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, Deborah Bode, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision concerning her 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 the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which dismissed her appeal. The Division then made a determination that Claimant had been overpaid benefits. She appealed that determination to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the Division’s decision. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission seeking review of both decisions. The Commission affirmed the orders of the Appeals tribunal. The Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on January 14, 2015. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The Commission has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, contending that it .is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response.

The 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 January 14, 2015. Under Chapter 288, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before February 13, 2015. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed the notice of appeal to the Commission on February 19, 2015. Thus, the notice of appeal is 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 appeal is dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 297, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huiling-chen-claimantappellant-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack