NAVE v. BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL (2026)

Torie Nave (“Nave”) appeals a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) that affirmed the dismissal of her unemployment benefits appeal. On appeal, Nave argues that the Division of Employment Security erred in determining that her employment had been terminated for misconduct. The appeal is dismissed for failure to challenge the ground on which the Commission's decision was based.

Background

Nave worked for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (“BJH”) in Saint Louis, Missouri.¹ Her employment was terminated in September of 2025.

On October 20, 2025, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (the “Division”) determined that Nave had been terminated for misconduct, which disqualified her from unemployment benefits pursuant to section 288.050 ² until she earned six times the weekly benefit amount in insured work after the date of the disqualifying discharge. See § 288.050.2. Specifically, the deputy's determination indicated: “The claimant was discharged because she was dishonest about a family member's death for which she received bereavement leave and pay. This is a disregard of standards of behavior the employer has a right to expect of their employee.”

On October 21, 2025, Nave timely appealed the deputy's determination to the Division's Appeals Tribunal. Regarding the reason for the appeal, Nave indicated: “The supervisor falsified information on the discharge paperwork. I was not paid bereavement time. BJC policy provides a benefit of non-paid time for non-immediate family members. I wasn't given either.”

On October 22, 2025, the Division mailed a notice of hearing to Nave indicating that the hearing was scheduled for November 10, 2025, at 8:15 A.M. The notice provided instructions for participating in the telephone hearing, including calling a toll-free number, entering a specified PIN number when instructed, and waiting for the referee to join the hearing. The notice indicated that evidence would be taken regarding Nave's separation from work for the purpose of determining whether Nave was discharged for misconduct connected with the work. The notice provided an address and telephone number to which questions could be directed. Further instructions were provided regarding how to submit additional documents and how to provide information for potential witnesses.

An additional instruction stated:

Attendance: If you filed the appeal and do not participate in the hearing, your appeal will be dismissed. If the other party filed the appeal and you do not participate in the hearing, your evidence will not be used to make the decision.

On November 10, 2025, at 8:15 A.M., Nave did not call in to the conference and did not participate in the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Nave's appeal.

Nave then filed an appeal with the Commission. It is not clear from the record on appeal how Nave filed her application for review with the Commission or what the contents of such an application were. The portion of the legal file where the contents of the claimant's appeal document would typically appear instead showed a reply email from Nave to “Appeal Team.” In this email, Nave provided her case number and personal information; indicated that she had accidentally submitted a duplicate appeal, and requested that the Appeal Team remove the duplicate from the system. Thus, it is unclear to this Court what allegations or arguments Nave made to the Commission in her application for review with the Commission, but it is clear from the record that the Commission considered Nave as having timely filed an appeal with the Commission.

On January 2, 2026, the Commission mailed to Nave its order affirming the dismissal of the Appeals Tribunal. The Commission recognized that an Appeals Tribunal referee had dismissed Nave's appeal after Nave had failed to participate in the telephone hearing, and that Nave had filed a timely application for review with the Commission. The Commission concluded that Nave's allegations, if true, would not support a finding of good cause for her failure to participate in the scheduled hearing. The Commission indicated that Nave had not made a prima facie showing that she was entitled to relief and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a determination of the truth or falsity of Nave's allegations.³

Following the Commission's decision, Nave timely appealed to this Court.

Standard of Review

On appeal from a Commission decision, our review is pursuant to article V, section 18 of the Missouri Constitution and section 288.210. Under article V, section 18 of the Missouri Constitution, we may review whether the Commission's decision is authorized by law and whether it is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. See Mo. Const. art. V, § 18. Under section 288.210, we may review whether the Commission acted in excess of its powers, whether the decision was procured by fraud, whether the facts found by the commission do not support the award, and whether sufficient competent evidence in the record warranted the award.

Analysis

On appeal, Nave argues that the Division of Employment Security erred in determining that she was discharged for misconduct because she did not knowingly violate her employer's policy by providing accurate information regarding her relationship with a close family member. However, due to Nave's failure to challenge the sole issue decided by the Commission, we are unable to address her claim of error and instead must dismiss her appeal.

On appeal from a decision of the Commission, “[t]his court may only address the issues that were determined by the Commission and may not consider issues that were not before the Commission.” Perez v. Elwood Staffing Services, 726 S.W.3d 704, 705 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Fast v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 671 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)). In this matter, the Commission's decision was based on whether Nave had alleged good cause to excuse her failure to participate in the scheduled hearing so as to warrant the setting aside of the dismissal of her appeal. The Commission found that she had not alleged facts that would support such a finding of good cause.

Nave does not assert error regarding the Commission's finding that she had failed to allege good cause for her failure to participate in the hearing. “If a claimant does not address on appeal the issues decided by the Commission, then the claimant is deemed to have abandoned the appeal.” Jensen v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 699 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting Hauenstein v. Houlihan's Rests., Inc., 381 S.W.3d, 380, 380-81 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)).

Because Nave has failed to address the ground on which the Commission affirmed the dismissal of her appeal, Nave has failed to present an appealable issue for us to review. Jensen, 699 S.W.3d at 777 (citing Stanton v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)). Consequently, Nave's appeal must be dismissed.

Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Nave resides in Illinois. In cases “involving a claimant who is not a resident of this state ․ the Missouri court of appeals for the western district shall have jurisdiction of the appeal.” § 288.210.

2.   Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to RSMo 2016, as updated.

3.   As noted, the legal file does not indicate what Nave's allegations were in her application for review filed with the Commission.

Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

All concur.