Charleen Stogsdill, Claimant/Appellant v. BJC Healthcare and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

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: Charleen Stogsdill, Claimant/Appellant v. BJC Healthcare and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED87433 Handdown Date: 03/14/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Charleen Stogsdill, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch and Gail Powers Opinion Summary: Claimant Charleen Stogsdill appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review as untimely. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Claimant's appeal must be dismissed because she did not file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion, depriving the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction over her case. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, C.J. Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Crane, J., and Shaw, J., concur. Opinion: Claimant Charleen Stogsdill appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review as untimely. We dismiss her appeal.

The Division of Employment Security denied Claimant's application for unemployment benefits, after concluding that she was discharged from her employment for misconduct. Claimant sought review of that decision with the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed her application as untimely. Claimant has now appealed to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, contending her failure to file a timely application for review to the Commission deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. A claimant has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. The Appeals Tribunal certified that it mailed its decision to Claimant on September 19, 2005. Therefore, her application for review was due thirty days later on October 19, 2005. Section 288.200.1. Claimant mailed her application for review on November 23, 2005, which is outside the time limitations of section 288.200. The unemployment statutes provide for no exceptions to the time requirement for filing an application for review. In addition, the failure to file a timely application for review automatically divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it could only dismiss the application for review. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Because the Commission had no jurisdiction over Claimant's case, this Court has no jurisdiction. Id. Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.