Warren Wynn, Claimant/Appellant v. Manpower International, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED87362
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Warren Wynn, Claimant/
- Respondent
- Manpower International, Inc., 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: Warren Wynn, Claimant/Appellant v. Manpower International, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED87362 Handdown Date: 03/14/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Warren Wynn, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch Opinion Summary: Appellant appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission regarding her unemployment benefits. APPEAL 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: Glenn A. Norton, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Crane, J. and Shaw, J., Concur. Opinion: Warren Wynn (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 failed, without good cause, to apply for available suitable work. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision on November 9, 2005. Claimant filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 10, 2005. The Division of Employment Security has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, contending his notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response. A claimant has twenty days to file a notice of appeal from the Commission's final decision regarding unemployment. 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 November 9, 2005. The decision became final ten days later and Claimant's notice of appeal was due on December 9,
- Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2005, one day out of time.
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). 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). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider Claimant's appeal. The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. 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.
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
Cases
- frenchie v division of employment sec 156 sw3d 437cited
Frenchie v. Division of Employment Sec., 156 S.W.3d 437
- phillips v clean tech 34 sw3d 854cited
Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Jessi Nienke, Claimant/Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87011
Margie Johnson, Claimant/Appellant, v. St. Louis Parking Company, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87698
Susan Whitlow, Claimant/Appellant, v. Americall Group, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87765
Neeka Meneh, Claimant/Appellant, v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Company and Division of Employment Security, Respondents(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87329
Michael Wheeler, Claimant/Appellant, v. Advance Processing Systems, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87997
Douglas Nickel, Claimant/Appellant, v. G.J. Grewe, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87519