William D. Miller (Deceased) and Myrtle Kamrowski, Claimant/Appellant, v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED81584
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: William D. Miller (Deceased) and Myrtle Kamrowski, Claimant/Appellant, v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Respondent. Case Number: ED81584 Handdown Date: 08/27/2002 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Charles E. Rendlen, III Counsel for Respondent: Jeffrey W. Wright Opinion Summary: Myrtle Kamrowski appeals an award for workers' compensation death benefits by the labor and industrial relations commission. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court is without jurisdiction to consider Kamrowski's appeal because her notice of appeal to the commission was untimely under section 287.495. There is no provision for a late notice of appeal under section 287.495. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Myrtle Kamrowski, the claimant, filed a notice of appeal with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. She has also filed a motion to file appeal out of time. Because the notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny the claimant's motion to file the appeal out of time. The claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits after her son, William D. Miller, was fatally injured in a
work-related accident while working on a bridge for the employer, Missouri Highway and Transportation Department. The Commission issued its award of partial death benefits on June 28, 2002. The claimant filed a notice of appeal with the Commission on July 31, 2002. Claimant included a motion to file her appeal out of time, which the Commission forwarded to this Court. Claimant's notice of appeal is untimely. Under section 287.495, RSMo 2000, claimant's notice of appeal was due within thirty days of the date of the final award of the Commission. Because the award was issued on June 28, 2002, the notice of appeal was due on Monday, July 29, 2002. Section 287.480, RSMo 2000. Employer filed a timely notice of appeal on July 29, 2002, which was assigned Appeal No.
- Claimant did not file her notice of appeal, however, until July 31, 2002, which is clearly untimely.
In a workers' compensation case there is no mechanism to seek a special order for a late notice of appeal under Rule 81.07 or to file a cross-appeal under Rule 81.05(b). Otte v. Langley's Lawn Care, 66 S.W.3d 64, 68-69 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). Failure to file an appeal in compliance with the time requirements of section 287.495 leaves this court without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Id. at 69. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to consider claimant's appeal, which must be dismissed. Claimant's motion to file her appeal out of time is also denied. Appeal dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389