Parent v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Parent v. Division of Employment Security

113 S.W.3d 253, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2003 WL 21961510

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2003

DocketNo. ED 83144

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.W.3d 253 (Parent 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

Parent v. Division of Employment Security, 113 S.W.3d 253, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2003 WL 21961510 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Mary Ann Parent (Claimant) appeals from a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

[254]*254On November 4, 2002, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not available for work. On February 28, 2003, Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal because it was untimely. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on March 17, 2003. Over two months later, on May 31, 2003, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission denied Claimant’s application for review because it was also untimely. Claimant appealed to this Court.

In response to Claimant’s appeal, the Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division contends that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200¹ gives a claimant thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on March 17, 2003. Claimant filed her application for review with the Commission well over thirty days later, on May 31, 2003. Therefore, her appeal was untimely.

Claimant’s failure to file her appeal in a timely fashion divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Moreover, Section 288.200 fails to provide any mechanism for a party to seek a special order to file a late application for review. Id. The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, JJ., concur.

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

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Mary Ann Parent (Claimant) appeals from a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

[254]*254On November 4, 2002, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not available for work. On February 28, 2003, Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal because it was untimely. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on March 17, 2003. Over two months later, on May 31, 2003, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission denied Claimant’s application for review because it was also untimely. Claimant appealed to this Court.

In response to Claimant’s appeal, the Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division contends that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200¹ gives a claimant thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on March 17, 2003. Claimant filed her application for review with the Commission well over thirty days later, on May 31, 2003. Therefore, her appeal was untimely.

Claimant’s failure to file her appeal in a timely fashion divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Moreover, Section 288.200 fails to provide any mechanism for a party to seek a special order to file a late application for review. Id. The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.W.3d 253, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1302, 2003 WL 21961510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parent-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack