MARY HEFFNER, APP V DIV OF EMPLOY SECURITY, RES
Decision date: August 16, 2011ED96690
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- MARY HEFFNER, APP
- Respondent
- DIV OF EMPLOY SECURITY, RES
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","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
MARY HEFFNER,)No. ED96690 ) Claimant/Appellant,) ) vs.)Appeal from the Labor and )Industrial Relations Commission DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,) )OPINION FILED: August 16, 2011 Respondent.) Mary Heffner (Claimant) has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision regarding her claim for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. We dismiss the appeal. In 2010, Claimant filed a claim seeking a determination of her eligibility for trade readjustment allowance or trade adjustment assistance (TRA/TAA) under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, which provides certain benefits to workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade. A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded Claimant was not entitled to the assistance because her separation date occurred more than one year before the petition for eligibility to apply was filed. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy's determination. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. On March 18, 2011, the Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, asserting it is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.
2 In employment matters governed by chapter 288, RSMo, the procedures outlined for appeal by statute are mandatory. Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, provides that a notice of appeal to this Court in such a matter is due within twenty days of the Commission's decision becoming final. 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 March 18, 2011. Therefore, Claimant's notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before Monday, April 18, 2011. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210; section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant mailed her notice of appeal to the Commission. Under section 288.240, any notice of appeal is deemed filed "as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope. . . ." The postmark on Claimant's envelope was April 22, 2011, which is untimely under section 288.210. Chapter 288 sets forth stringent guidelines for the filing of the notice of appeal and makes no provision for filing a late notice of appeal. Martinez v. Lea-Ed, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 809, 810 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). The provisions for a special order for late notice of appeal as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 81.07 do not apply to special statutory proceedings, such as those under Chapter 288. See, Holmes v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 488 S.W.2d 311, 314-15 (Mo. App. 1972). Because Claimant's notice of appeal was untimely under Chapter 288, our only recourse is to dismiss Claimant's appeal. The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed. __________________________________ KURT S. ODENWALD, CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J., Concur.
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
Rules
- Rule 81.07cited
Rule 81.07
Cases
- inc v division of employment security 945 sw2d 478cited
Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 945 S.W.2d 478
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Tom Wickis, Appellant, v. FBCMO, LLC d/b/a Fitz's Beverage and Bottle, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictOctober 25, 2011#ED97139
GLENDA BONNER, APP V MERS/MO GOODWILL IND., RES(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 16, 2011#ED96898
Leslie Williams, Appellant, v. Labarge Products, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 22, 2011#ED96161
Kellee Jo Wood, Appellant, v. Atlas Construction & Design, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 22, 2011#ED96082
Robert Clerkin, Appellant, v. Estes Express Lines Corporation, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 22, 2011#ED96012
Calvin Ross, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2011)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 1, 2011#ED95994