McGee v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital

Missouri Court of Appeals

McGee v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital

527 S.W.3d 889

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105006

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 889 (McGee v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital) 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

McGee v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, 527 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lyntrice McGee (“Claimant”) appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) affirming the dismissal of her untimely appeal by the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security (the “Division”). Claimant offers two points on appeal regarding the Division’s denial of unemployment benefits, but neither is applicable to the order of the Commission, as the Commission only reviewed whether Claimant’s appeal to the Appeals Tribunal was timely and whether there was good cause to extend the time to file the appeal. We affirm the Commission’s order.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lyntrice McGee (“Claimant”) appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) affirming the dismissal of her untimely appeal by the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security (the “Division”). Claimant offers two points on appeal regarding the Division’s denial of unemployment benefits, but neither is applicable to the order of the Commission, as the Commission only reviewed whether Claimant’s appeal to the Appeals Tribunal was timely and whether there was good cause to extend the time to file the appeal. We affirm the Commission’s order.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-barnes-jewish-hospital-moctapp-2017.