Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Warren WYNN, Claimant/Appellant, v. MANPOWER INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Warren Wynn (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission regarding his unemployment benefits. Because his notice of appeal to this Court is untimely, the appeal is dismissed.
A deputy from the Division of Employment Security concluded Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he failed, without good cause, to apply for available suitable work. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision on November 9, 2005. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 10, 2005.
The Division of Employment Security has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, contending his notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response.
A claimant has twenty days to file a notice of appeal from the Commission's final decision regarding unemployment. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission's decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Secretary for the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on November 9, 2005. The decision became final ten days later and Claimant's notice of appeal was due on December 9, 2005. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2005, one day out of time.
In an unemployment case, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Frenchie v. Division of Employment Sec., 156 S.W.3d 437, 438 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Section 288.210 makes no provision for late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider Claimant's appeal.
The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. Claimant's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
GLENN A. NORTON, Chief Judge.
KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. ED 87362.
Decided: March 14, 2006
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals,Eastern District,Division Five.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)