Cynthia Newsom, Claimant/Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

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: Cynthia Newsom, Claimant/Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent. Case Number: ED91772 Handdown Date: 10/07/2008 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Matthew Murphy Opinion Summary: Cynthia Newsome appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss her application for review of the Appeals Tribunal's decision regarding unemployment benefits. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Newsome's appeal must be dismissed because the application for review to the commission was untimely, which deprives the commission and this court of jurisdiction over the case. Citation: Opinion Author: Nannette A. Baker, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Cohen and Romines, JJ., concur. Opinion:

Cynthia Newsome (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing her application for review of the Appeals Tribunal's decision regarding unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal. A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) assessed an overpayment penalty against Claimant after determining she had been overpaid unemployment benefits due to her willful failure to report all earnings. Claimant filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy's determination. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which dismissed it as untimely. Claimant now appeals to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. The Division asserts that Claimant's late application for review to the Commission deprived both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Claimant has not filed a response. 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. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on March 25, 2008. The application for review was due thirty days later, on April 24, 2008. Section 288.200.1. Claimant faxed the application for review to the Commission on April 25, 2008, which was untimely under section 288.200.1. There are no exceptions in the unemployment statutes to the thirty-day filing requirement. Filing a timely application for review, therefore, is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and this Court. Morris v. C.L. Smith Co., 247 S.W.3d 587, 588 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it. 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.