Marvin Nelson, Claimant/Appellant, v. Roth Industries, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED88678
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Marvin Nelson, Claimant/
- Respondent
- Roth Industries, Inc., and Division of Employment Security
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
- {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
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: Marvin Nelson, Claimant/Appellant, v. Roth Industries, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED88678 Handdown Date: 10/17/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch Opinion Summary: Marvin Nelson appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision denying his claim for unemployment compensation. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal where the notice of appeal to this Court was untimely and there is 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: Marvin Nelson (Claimant) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security (Division) has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. A deputy for the Division concluded that Claimant was disqualified for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. Claimant then appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which reversed the
deputy's determination and awarded him unemployment benefits. Claimant's employer, Roth Industries, Inc. (Employer), filed an appeal to the Commission. The Commission reversed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, concluding that Claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The unemployment statutes provide that the notice of appeal to this Court is due within twenty days of the Commission's decision becoming final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission's decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on August 7, 2006. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on September 6, 2006. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. The Commission received Claimant's notice of appeal in an envelope postmarked September 7, 2006. Under section 288.240, RSMo 2000, Claimant's notice of appeal is deemed filed on that date. Therefore, Claimant's notice of appeal 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 and we must dismiss it. See, Nienke v. Division of Employment Sec., 182 S.W.3d 726, 727 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 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.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 288.200.2cited
Section 288.200.2, RSMo
- RSMo § 288.210cited
Section 288.210, RSMo
- RSMo § 288.240cited
section 288.240, RSMo
Cases
- nienke v division of employment sec 182 sw3d 726cited
Nienke v. Division of Employment Sec., 182 S.W.3d 726
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Gaylon Frazier, Claimant/Appellant v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED88831
Mary Brendel, Claimant/Appellant, v. Union Electric Company, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED88550
Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 21, 2015#ED102630
Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Exel, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 16, 2014#ED102004
Evangeline Culp, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Target Corporation and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 26, 2014#ED101563
George Crockett, Claimant/Appellant, vs. Missouri Sportservice, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2012)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 6, 2012#ED97762