Marvin Nelson, Claimant/Appellant, v. Roth Industries, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED88678
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.
Related Opinions
Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act because she failed to plead facts demonstrating legal disability or a hostile work environment based on disability. However, the court reversed and remanded the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing the elements of retaliation under the Act based on her complaints of disability discrimination.
Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 23, 2025#ED113270
Connie Haworth vs. Guest Services, Inc., et al.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD87623
Victoria Amrine vs. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD88066
Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.(2025)
Supreme Court of MissouriNovember 4, 2025#SC101018