Tiffaney Hampton v. Aerotek, Inc., and Division of Employment Security

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 18, 2014
• Docket: ED100137
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE

TIFFANEY HAMPTON, ) No. ED100137 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Labor and ) Industrial Relations Commission vs. ) LC-13-01510 ) AEROTEK, INC., ) ) and ) ) DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT ) SECURITY, ) ) Respondents. ) Filed: March 18, 2014

OPINION

Tiffaney Hampton appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations

Commission dismissing her claim for unemployment benefits. We dismiss Hampton's appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Hampton filed a claim for unemployment benefits following the termination of her

employment with Aerotek, Inc.. A deputy determined that Hampton was disqualified from

receiving benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Hampton

filed an appeal from the deputy's determination, and a telephone hearing was scheduled before an

Appeals Tribunal. After Hampton failed to appear at the telephone hearing, the Appeals

Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Hampton requested reconsideration of the dismissal and was granted a hearing to determine whether she had good cause for failing to participate in the

telephone hearing. Following the hearing, the Appeals Tribunal reinstated the order of dismissal,

finding that Hampton did not show good cause. Thereafter, Hampton filed an application for

review with the Commission, and the Commission affirmed and adopted the Appeals Tribunal's

decision. Hampton appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

In Hampton's sole point on appeal, she argues that the Commission erred in concluding

that she committed misconduct. "On appeal, this Court may address only those issues

determined by the Commission and may not consider any issues that were not before the

Commission." Hauenstein v. Houlihan's Restaurants, Inc., 381 S.W.3d 380, 380 (Mo. App. E.D.

2012) (internal quotation omitted). Where a claimant fails to address the issues determined by

the Commission, the claimant is deemed to have abandoned the appeal. Id. at 380-81.

Here, Hampton's sole point on appeal addresses only the merits of her claim for

unemployment benefits. However, the Commission did not address the merits of Hampton's

claim but only determined that her appeal was properly dismissed due to her failure to appear at

the telephone hearing. Because Hampton does not contest the Commission's dismissal of her

appeal, there is no issue for this Court to review and Hampton's appeal is deemed abandoned.

Therefore, we must dismiss Hampton's appeal.

III. CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

________________________________ GLENN A. NORTON, Judge Roy L. Richter, P.J. and Clifford H. Ahrens, J., concur