PEREZ v. ELWOOD STAFFING SERVICES (2025)

Rita Perez appeals the Orders of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) dismissing her appeals of the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. The Commission determined that Perez's appeals to the Commission were untimely and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. Perez does not challenge the decisions that her appeals to the Commission were untimely; rather, she raises two points on appeal that argue the merits of her underlying claim. The appeal is dismissed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Perez began working for Elwood Staffing Services in September of 2023. On October 24, 2024, Perez notified the agency that she was unable to report to her assigned placement because her car broke down. She subsequently applied to the Missouri Division of Employment Security (“Division”) for unemployment compensation benefits. On November 22, 2024, a Division deputy determined that Perez was disqualified from benefits because Perez left her job voluntarily without good cause pursuant to section 288.050.1(1).¹ In a separate determination on the same day, a Division deputy determined Perez was ineligible for benefits from October 27, 2024 to November 2, 2024 because she was unavailable for work pursuant to section 288.040.1(2).²

Perez timely appealed both determinations to the Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on November 26, 2024. The Tribunal affirmed the Division deputy's determinations in both cases in separate Decisions, both entered on December 27, 2024. The Tribunal mailed its Decisions to Perez on December 27, 2024. On January 30, 2025, Perez filed Applications for Review (“Applications”) to the Commission in each case. On February 26, 2025, the Commission issued its Orders, dismissing both of Perez's Applications as untimely.

Perez appeals.

Analysis

Under section 288.200.1, a party must file an application for review to the Commission “within thirty days” after notification or mailing of the Decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Applications for review filed more than thirty days from mailing are considered untimely. 8 C.S.R. 20-4.010(6)³ ; Fast v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 671 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). In Perez's case, the only issue decided by the Commission was the timeliness of Perez's appeals to it. “This Court may only address the issues that were determined by the Commission and may not consider issues that were not before the Commission.” Id. (citation modified). Thus, the sole matters this Court may review are the Commission's Orders that Perez's appeals were untimely.

In her appeal to this Court, however, Perez solely argues the merits of her underlying claims. Specifically, Perez argues that the determinations of the Division deputy were error because 1) Perez was not unavailable for work under section 288.040.1(2), and 2) Perez did not leave her job voluntarily under section 288.050.1(1).⁴

Rule 84.04(a)(4)⁵ requires Perez's brief to include a point relied on for each point of error she wishes this Court to address. Herrmann v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 673 S.W.3d 889, 891 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). Rule 84.13(a) requires allegations of error to be properly briefed. A question not presented in an appellant's brief is considered abandoned on appeal. Porter v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 688 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024). Here, Perez fails to allege any point of error that is reviewable by this Court. Indeed, her points relied on are silent on the question of the timeliness of her appeals to the Commission. Rather, Perez asks this Court to consider issues not decided by the Commission. We are barred from reviewing the merits of Perez's appeal because the Commission did not address them. See id. at 29. Because Perez presents no argument as to why the Commission erred in finding her applications for review untimely, her appeal to this Court must be dismissed.

Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory citations are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2016) as updated by supplement through 2025.

2.   Based on the Division decisions, Perez filed two separate appeals to the Appeals Tribunal. In the first she argued that she did not voluntarily leave her job (Appeal No. 2290532). In the second she argued that she was not unavailable for work (Appeal No. 2290533).

3.   All references to regulations are to the Missouri Code of State Regulations (2025), unless otherwise noted.

4.   This Court struck Perez's original brief because it failed to properly present the statement of facts as required by Rule 84.04(c), omitted the points relied on as required by Rule 84.04(d), failed to properly format the points relied on to include legal authority as required by Rule 84.04(d)(5), omitted the standard of review as required by Rule 84.04(e), and omitted the conclusion as required by Rule 84.04(a)(6). This Court allowed Perez the opportunity to file an amended brief. We therefore address the amended brief.

5.   All references to rules are to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (2025), unless otherwise noted.

Gary D. Witt, Judge

All concur