Norman Morris, Claimant/Appellant, v. C.L. Smith 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: Norman Morris, Claimant/Appellant, v. C.L. Smith Company and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED90857 Handdown Date: 03/18/2008 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Matthew R. Heeren Opinion Summary: Norman Morrison appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his application for review of the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Morrisson's appeal must be dismissed because he did not file his application for review with the commission in a timely fashion, depriving the commission and this court of jurisdiction over the case. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: Norman Morrison (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing his application for review of the denial of unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, because he had been discharged from work for misconduct connected with work. In a separate determination, the deputy also concluded that Claimant was disqualified for one week because he had failed to enter the required number of work search contacts. Claimant appealed these decisions to the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which dismissed his appeal on October 18, 2007. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission dismissed his application for review as untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, because this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal. The Division asserts that Claimant's application for review to the Commission was untimely, which divests both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Claimant has failed to file a response to the motion. An unemployment claimant has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on October 18, 2007. Therefore, Claimant's application for review was due thirty days later, on Monday, November 19, 2007. Section 288.200.1; Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant mailed his application for review to the Commission in an envelope postmarked November 26, 2007, which is the date of filing. Section 288.240. Accordingly, the application for review was untimely under section 288.200.1. There are no exceptions in the unemployment statutes to the thirty-day filing requirement. Filing a timely application for review, therefore, is a jurisdictional requirement in both the Commission and this Court. Brown v. MOCAP, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D. 2003). Without jurisdiction over the appeal, we must dismiss it. The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The 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.