Neeka Meneh, Claimant/Appellant, v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Company 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: Neeka Meneh, Claimant/Appellant, v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Company and Division of Employment Security, Respondents Case Number: ED87329 Handdown Date: 04/11/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Neeka Meneh Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch Opinion Summary: Neeka Meneh appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision regarding his 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 there is no mechanism for a late notice of appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: Dowd, Jr. and Shaw, JJ., concur Opinion: Neeka Meneh (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission regarding his unemployment benefits. Because his notice of appeal to this Court is untimely, the appeal is dismissed. A deputy from the Division of Employment Security concluded Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his work due to aggravated misconduct connected with his

work. The deputy also decided that all of Claimant's wage credits with the employer should be cancelled. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to appear for his hearing. Claimant then appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court. This Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction. Watkins v. Kings Food Philips Inc., 160 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). After reviewing the record filed by the Commission, this Court issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the order. Statutes governing unemployment cases provide a claimant twenty days to file a notice of appeal from the date the Commission's decision becomes 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 Secretary for the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on October 27, 2005. The decision became final ten days later and Claimant's notice of appeal was due on Monday, November 28, 2005. Sections 288.200.2; section 288.210; section 288.240, RSMo 2000 (if that day falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing date falls to the next business day). Claimant filed his notice of appeal on December 2, 2005, which is untimely. Section 288.210 makes 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). In an unemployment case, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Frenchie v. Division of Employment Sec., 156 S.W.3d 437, 438 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider Claimant's appeal. 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.