Pharmflex, Inc., Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, and Jennifer Bibik, Respondents.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Pharmflex, Inc., Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, and Jennifer Bibik, Respondents. Case Number: 53233 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Henry T. Herschel Counsel for Respondent: Sharon A. Willis Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DENIED. Opinion: ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TO TRANSFER The Division of Employment Security asserts in its motion for rehearing or for transfer to the Supreme Court that our opinion is in conflict with a recent decision of this court in Casagrande v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, No. 53533 (Mo. App. September 23, 1997). In Casagrande, this court relied upon the definition of "good cause" in 8 CSR 10-5.040(4), while in this case the court found that the same definition was invalid because it was in conflict with the legislative intention of section 288.130.4, RSMo 1994. While the decision of the court in Casagrande was an order opinion and of no precedential value, the confusion over the issues raised in the two cases emphasizes the need to clarify that our opinion, here, does not declare the definition of "good cause" in 8 CSR 10-5.040(4) invalid for all purposes. In this case, 8 CSR 10-5.040(4) defined the term "good cause" as that term was used in a statute. The definition was found invalid because it was more restrictive than the common law definition intended by the legislature when it used

that term in section 288.130.4. In Casagrande, the regulation defined "good cause" as that term was used in another regulation, 8 CSR 10-5.040(2)(C). The agency was free to define the term, as it was used in another regulation, in any manner it desired. That case did not involve any conflict with the intent of the legislature. There is no inconsistency between the holding in this case and that of Casagrande. The definition of "good cause" in 8 CSR 10-5.040(4) is invalid only where it applies to define a statutory term, as in this case. Motion denied. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.