Williams v. Lutheran Senior Services

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Lutheran Senior Services

103 S.W.3d 849, 2003 WL 1799004

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 2003

DocketNo. ED 82349

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.W.3d 849 (Williams v. Lutheran Senior Services) 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

Williams v. Lutheran Senior Services, 103 S.W.3d 849, 2003 WL 1799004 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Chief Judge.

The claimant, Brenda Williams, appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission disqualifying her from unemployment benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work or the employer.¹ Because we find the claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal.

As in all cases, this Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. City of Brentwood v. Barron Holdings Intern., Ltd., L.L.C., 66 S.W.3d 139, 142 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). In employment security cases, an untimely filing,of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mathis v. St. Louis County Health Dept., 84 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo.App.E.D.2002). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, governs appellate jurisdiction in employment security eases. That statute provides an aggrieved party twenty days to appeal the Commission’s decision after it becomes final. Id. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after the date it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Commission mailed its decision to the claimant on December 11, 2002. Therefore, the decision became final ten days later on December 21, 2002. Section 288.200.2; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. The claimant’s notice of appeal was due on [850]*850January 10, 2003. Section 288.210. The claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission on January 11, 2003 and was untimely.

We issued an order directing the claimant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. The claimant filed a response indicating she did mail her notice of appeal on January 10, 2003. However, the record provided contains a copy of the envelope in which the claimant mailed her notice of appeal. It is clearly postmarked January 11, 2003. Under section 288.240, RSMo 2000, a notice of appeal mailed to and received by the Commission will be considered filed “as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope” in which the notice of appeal is enclosed. The Commission properly filed the notice of appeal on January 11, 2003, the date the envelope was endorsed by the post office.

The procedures outlined for appeal by statute in unemployment security cases are mandatory. Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Missouri Div. of Employment Sec., 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). In employment security cases, an untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mathis v. St. Louis County Health Dept., 84 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo.App.E.D.2002). Neither section 288.200 nor section 288.210 provides a mechanism for seeking a special order to file a late notice of appeal. Mathis, 84 S.W.3d at 525; Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ., concur.

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

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Chief Judge.

The claimant, Brenda Williams, appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission disqualifying her from unemployment benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work or the employer.¹ Because we find the claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal.

As in all cases, this Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. City of Brentwood v. Barron Holdings Intern., Ltd., L.L.C., 66 S.W.3d 139, 142 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). In employment security cases, an untimely filing,of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mathis v. St. Louis County Health Dept., 84 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo.App.E.D.2002). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, governs appellate jurisdiction in employment security eases. That statute provides an aggrieved party twenty days to appeal the Commission’s decision after it becomes final. Id. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after the date it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Commission mailed its decision to the claimant on December 11, 2002. Therefore, the decision became final ten days later on December 21, 2002. Section 288.200.2; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. The claimant’s notice of appeal was due on [850]*850January 10, 2003. Section 288.210. The claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission on January 11, 2003 and was untimely.

We issued an order directing the claimant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. The claimant filed a response indicating she did mail her notice of appeal on January 10, 2003. However, the record provided contains a copy of the envelope in which the claimant mailed her notice of appeal. It is clearly postmarked January 11, 2003. Under section 288.240, RSMo 2000, a notice of appeal mailed to and received by the Commission will be considered filed “as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope” in which the notice of appeal is enclosed. The Commission properly filed the notice of appeal on January 11, 2003, the date the envelope was endorsed by the post office.

The procedures outlined for appeal by statute in unemployment security cases are mandatory. Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Missouri Div. of Employment Sec., 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). In employment security cases, an untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mathis v. St. Louis County Health Dept., 84 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo.App.E.D.2002). Neither section 288.200 nor section 288.210 provides a mechanism for seeking a special order to file a late notice of appeal. Mathis, 84 S.W.3d at 525; Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 849, 2003 WL 1799004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-lutheran-senior-services-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack