Sharon Alfred, Claimant/Appellant, v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur Operating, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents
Decision date: UnknownED91314
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Sharon Alfred, Claimant/
- Respondent
- Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur Operating, LLC, and Division of Employment Security
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
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: Sharon Alfred, Claimant/Appellant, v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur Operating, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents Case Number: ED91314 Handdown Date: 06/30/2008 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Sharon Alfred (pro se) Counsel for Respondent: Ronald J. Miller Opinion Summary: Sharon Alfred appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying unemployment benefits. 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: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concurs. Opinion: Sharon Alfred (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision denying her
unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Claimant's appeal to the Appeals Tribunal was dismissed and she sought review by the Commission, which 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. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, requires that an unemployment claimant must file the notice of appeal to this Court from the Commission's decision within twenty days of the 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 10, 2008. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on April 9, 2008. Sections 288.200.2 and 288.210. Claimant mailed her notice of appeal to the Commission in an envelope postmarked May 3, 2008. Therefore, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on that date. Section 288.240, RSMo 2000; Brandes v. Correctional Medical Services, 216 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007). Even so, it is untimely under Section 288.210. Chapter 288 governing unemployment cases fails to provide for the filing of a late notice of appeal. McCuin 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. Flotron v. Information Solutions Design, 238 S.W.3d 745, 746 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007). 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.
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
Cases
- flotron v information solutions design 238 sw3d 745cited
Flotron v. Information Solutions Design, 238 S.W.3d 745
- mccuin phillips v clean tech 34 sw3d 854cited
McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Marilyn Williams, Appellant, v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2010)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 31, 2010#ED95017
Michael Williams, Appellant, v. Reuther Chrysler-Jeep Sales, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2010)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJune 29, 2010#ED94484
Marilyn Hamilton, Claimant/Appellant, v. Plaza Tire Service, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2008)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED91664
Kevin Griffin, Jr., Claimant/Appellant, v. Clif Wilkerson, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2008)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED91733
Brandi Caldwell, Claimant/Appellant, v. Ford Motor Company and Division of Employment Security, Respondents(2008)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED91336
Paul Flotron, Claimant/Appellant, v. Information Solutions Design and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2007)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED90325