Tate v. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tate v. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC.

254 S.W.3d 246, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 734, 2008 WL 2168806

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 2008

DocketED 91176

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 246 (Tate v. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, 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

Tate v. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., 254 S.W.3d 246, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 734, 2008 WL 2168806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Administrative Support Services Group, Inc. (Employer) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing its application for review of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision to award Serecia Tate (Claimant) unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because she had been discharged for misconduct connected with work. Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which reversed the deputy’s determination and concluded she was eligible for unemployment benefits. Employer then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed it as untimely. Employer now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Employer’s appeal. The Division asserts that Employer’s late application for review to the Commission deprived both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Employer has failed to file a response to the motion.

An employer 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. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Employer on January 28, 2008. Employer’s application for review was due thirty days later, on February 27, 2008. Section 288.200.1. Employer faxed its application for review to the Commission on March 11, 2008, which was untimely under section 288.200.1.

There are no exceptions in the unemployment statutes to the thirty-day filing requirement. Filing a timely application for review, therefore, is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and this Court. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it.

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

BOOKER T. SHAW and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ., Concur.

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

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Administrative Support Services Group, Inc. (Employer) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing its application for review of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision to award Serecia Tate (Claimant) unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because she had been discharged for misconduct connected with work. Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which reversed the deputy’s determination and concluded she was eligible for unemployment benefits. Employer then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed it as untimely. Employer now appeals to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Employer’s appeal. The Division asserts that Employer’s late application for review to the Commission deprived both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Employer has failed to file a response to the motion.

An employer 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. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Employer on January 28, 2008. Employer’s application for review was due thirty days later, on February 27, 2008. Section 288.200.1. Employer faxed its application for review to the Commission on March 11, 2008, which was untimely under section 288.200.1.

There are no exceptions in the unemployment statutes to the thirty-day filing requirement. Filing a timely application for review, therefore, is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and this Court. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it.

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

BOOKER T. SHAW and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 246, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 734, 2008 WL 2168806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-administrative-support-services-group-inc-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack