Kay Pawliczak, Claimant/Appellant, v. Advance Beauty College, LLC 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: Kay Pawliczak, Claimant/Appellant, v. Advance Beauty College, LLC and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED88324 Handdown Date: 08/29/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Jean Kinion Opinion Summary: Kay Pawliczak appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision regarding unemployment benefits. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The notice of appeal to this Court was untimely and the statutes provides no mechanism for a late notice of appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Norton and Cohen, JJ., concur. Opinion: Claimant Kay Pawliczak appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision regarding her claim for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending Claimant's notice of appeal is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. The statutes governing unemployment matters provide that any party aggrieved by the Commission's decision must file a notice of appeal to this Court within twenty days of the decision becoming final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000.

Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000, states that the Commission's decision becomes final "ten days after the date of notification or mailing thereof to the parties." Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on May 18, 2006. The notice of appeal was due on Monday, June 19, 2006. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210, 288.240, RSMo 2000. The Secretary for the Commission has certified that Claimant's notice of appeal was filed on July 1, 2006, and it is untimely. The unemployment statutes make no provision for late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). As a result, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Arslanovic v. Kirkwood School Dist., 185 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). Therefore, when a party's notice of appeal is untimely, this Court's only recourse is to dismiss the appeal. The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. Claimant's 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.