Donna Jones, Claimant/Appellant v. The St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition 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: Donna Jones, Claimant/Appellant v. The St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED88984 Handdown Date: 01/16/2007 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Donna Jones, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia Ann Quetsch Opinion Summary: Donna Jones appeals the labor and industrial relations commission's decision dismissing her application for review of the denial of unemployment benefits. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Jones' 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 the case. Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Norton, J. and Cohen, J., concur. Opinion: Donna Jones (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission)

dismissing her application for review of the denial of unemployment benefits. The appeal is dismissed. After a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, she filed an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal of the Division. On July 28, 2006, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the deputy's determination. Claimant then filed an application for review 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. The Division asserts that Claimant's application for review to the Commission was untimely and, as a result, the Commission and this Court are without jurisdiction to review his case. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. An aggrieved party in an unemployment matter 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. This statute sets forth no exceptions to the thirty-day requirement. As a result, any failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. Butler v. M.W.S. Enterprises, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 912, 913 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on July 28, 2006. Under section 288.200.1, Claimant's application for review was due thirty days later, on August 28, 2006. Claimant's application for review to the Commission was filed on August 31, 2006, and it was untimely. Without a timely application for review, the Commission had no jurisdiction over Claimant's case. Furthermore, our jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it does not have jurisdiction, then neither do we. Id. Our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal. 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.