This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style: Demetrius White, Claimant/Appellant v. EBG Health Care II, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Case Number: ED87936
Handdown Date: 06/30/2006
Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Counsel for Appellant: Demetrius White, Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch
Opinion Summary:
Demetrius White appeals the labor and industrial relations commission's decision dismissing his application for review regarding his unemployment benefits.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Division Five holds: White's appeal must be dismissed because he did not file his application for review with the commission in a timely fashion, depriving the commission and this Court of jurisdiction over his case.
Citation:
Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, C.J.
Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crane, J., and Dowd, Jr., J., Concur.
Opinion:
In this unemployment case, Demetrius White (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing his application for review. We dismiss the appeal.
A deputy of the Division of Employment Security denied Claimant's application for unemployment benefits. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed his appeal and mailed this decision to Claimant on January 11, 2006. Claimant then filed an application for review on March 13, 2006, with the Commission, which dismissed the application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court.
The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. Claimant has not filed a response. The Division asserts that this Court is without jurisdiction over Claimant's appeal, because his application for review to the Commission was untimely.
In unemployment cases, an application for review to the Commission must be filed within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. The statute provides no procedure for filing a late application for review. Therefore, any failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Further, if the Commission does not have jurisdiction, this Court is also without jurisdiction, because our jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission. Id.
The Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on January 11, 2006. His application for review to the Commission was due thirty days later, on February 10, 2006. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed his application for review on March 13, 2006, which is untimely. The untimely application for review automatically deprived the Commission, and ultimately this Court, of jurisdiction over the merits of his case. Jones v. Guardian Employer East, L.L.C., 87 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002).
The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Separate Opinion:
None