Division of Employment Security, Respondent v. Charles Smotherson, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED91717
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
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: Division of Employment Security, Respondent v. Charles Smotherson, Appellant. Case Number: ED91717 Handdown Date: 09/30/2008 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Charles Smotherson, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Matthew Murphy Opinion Summary: Charles Smotherson appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his application for review of the Appeals Tribunal's decision under the Trade Act of 2002. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Smotherson'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: DISMISSED. Cohen, J., and Romines, J. concur. Opinion:
Charles Smotherson (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing his application for review of the Appeals Tribunal's decision under the Trade Act of 1974. We dismiss the appeal. Claimant applied for trade readjustment assistance (TRA) benefits to cover books and tools as part of his funding for training under the Trade Act of 1974. A workforce development specialist denied his request and Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal of the Missouri Division of Employment Security (Division). The Appeals Tribunal affirmed the denial of the TRA benefits. 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. The Trade Act was established to provide TRA benefits as a supplement to state unemployment benefits. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 277 (1986). As a result, Chapter 288 of the Missouri Employment Security law applies to claims for TRA benefits. Under section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000, a claimant who has been denied TRA benefits may file an application for review with the Commission within thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on May 28, 2008. Therefore, his application for review was due thirty days later, on June 27,
- Section 288.200.1. Claimant faxed the application for review to the Commission on July 1, 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. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). 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.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450