Simpson v. Seven Seventeen HB Redevelopment

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simpson v. Seven Seventeen HB Redevelopment

126 S.W.3d 778, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 107, 2004 WL 116370

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83686

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.W.3d 778 (Simpson v. Seven Seventeen HB Redevelopment) 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

Simpson v. Seven Seventeen HB Redevelopment, 126 S.W.3d 778, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 107, 2004 WL 116370 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Willie Lee Simpson (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Claimant applied for unemployment benefits. Initially, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) determined that he was eligible for benefits. However, his employer, Adams Mark Hotel, appealed from this determination to the Appeals Tribunal. After a hearing, the Appeals Tribunal concluded that Claimant was disqualified from “waiting week” credit or benefits for four weeks and was otherwise ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct connected with his [779]*779work. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission, which it denied. Claimant now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Claimant’s application for review to the Commission was untimely, and therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200.1¹ provides a claimant with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the parties on November 14, 2002. Several months later, Claimant filed his application for review on September 25, 2003. However, Claimant’s application for review to the Commission was due on Monday, December 16, 2002. Sections 288.200.1 and 288.240. Claimant’s application for review filed on September 25, 2003 was untimely.

Neither the Commission nor this Court has jurisdiction because of Claimant’s failure to file his application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion. Bass v. Yong Min Kim, 101 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In addition, there is no provision in Section 288.200 for filing a late application for review with the Commission and its procedures are mandatory. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

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

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Willie Lee Simpson (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Claimant applied for unemployment benefits. Initially, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) determined that he was eligible for benefits. However, his employer, Adams Mark Hotel, appealed from this determination to the Appeals Tribunal. After a hearing, the Appeals Tribunal concluded that Claimant was disqualified from “waiting week” credit or benefits for four weeks and was otherwise ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct connected with his [779]*779work. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission, which it denied. Claimant now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Claimant’s application for review to the Commission was untimely, and therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.200.1¹ provides a claimant with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the parties on November 14, 2002. Several months later, Claimant filed his application for review on September 25, 2003. However, Claimant’s application for review to the Commission was due on Monday, December 16, 2002. Sections 288.200.1 and 288.240. Claimant’s application for review filed on September 25, 2003 was untimely.

Neither the Commission nor this Court has jurisdiction because of Claimant’s failure to file his application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion. Bass v. Yong Min Kim, 101 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In addition, there is no provision in Section 288.200 for filing a late application for review with the Commission and its procedures are mandatory. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.W.3d 778, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 107, 2004 WL 116370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-seven-seventeen-hb-redevelopment-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack