Kelly S. Castello, Appellant, v. Standard Machine & Manufacturing Company, & Division of Employment Secutiry, 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: Kelly S. Castello, Appellant, v. Standard Machine & Manufacturing Company, & Division of Employment Secutiry, Respondents Case Number: ED83080 Handdown Date: 09/02/2003 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Counsel for Appellant: Kelly Castello Counsel for Respondent: Ronald Miller and Larry Ruhmann Opinion Summary: Kelly S. Castello appeals the labor and industrial relations commission's order denying her application for review as untimely. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Castello's appeal because she failed to file her application for review with the commission within 30 days after the appeals tribunal mailed its decision to her. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper, III, JJ., concur Opinion:

Kelly S. Castello (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) order denying her application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On July 30, 2002, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because she left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer. Claimant filed a timely appeal with the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy' ;s determination. The Appeals Tribunal

mailed this decision to Claimant on October 3, 2002. Over seven months later, on May 1, 2003, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission denied Claimant's application for review because it was untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court. In response to Claimant's appeal, the Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division contends that Claimant's untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. Section 288.200(FN1) gives a claimant thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on October 3,

1. Claimant filed her application for review with the Commission over seven months later, on May 1, 2003. Therefore,

Claimant's application for review was untimely. Claimant's failure to file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion divested the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc. , 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). In addition, there is no mechanism under Section 288.200 for a special order to file a late application for review. Id. Without jurisdiction, this Court must grant the Division's motion to dismiss. Claimant's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Footnotes: FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo. 2000, unless otherwise indicated. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.