Walter Cooper, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

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: Walter Cooper, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent. Case Number: ED86622 Handdown Date: 09/20/2005 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Walter L. Cooper, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch Opinion Summary:

Walter Cooper appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision dismissing his application for review as untimely. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds : This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Cooper's appeal because he failed to timely file an application for review with the commission.

Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Knaup Crane, J. and Shaw, J., concur. Opinion: Walter Cooper (Claimant) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) decision dismissing his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant sought reassessment by the Appeals Tribunal after he received a notice of order of assessment of overpaid

unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal denied Claimant's petition for reassessment and affirmed the assessment. Claimant appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which dismissed his application for review as untimely. Claimant then appealed to this Court. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000, provides a claimant with thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on April 19, 2005. His application for review to the Commission was due thirty days later, on May 19, 2005. Section 288.200.1. His application for review was filed on June 2, 2005, and was untimely. This Court issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Claimant has filed no response to the order. The unemployment statutes do not provide any mechanism for filing a late application for review with the Commission. Crowden v. General Sign Co., 133 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). Claimant's failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission, and ultimately this Court, of jurisdiction. Moore v. Northview Village, Inc., 125 S.W.3d 347, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). The 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.