Breeden v. Gainey Transportation
Breeden v. Gainey Transportation
Opinion of the Court
David Breeden (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission on September 15, 2003. The Commission denied the application for review because it was untimely under Section 288.200.
The Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division argues that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.
Section 288.200.1 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 on July 30, 2003. Claimant’s application for review was due on August 29, 2003. Thus, Claimant’s application for review filed on September 15, 2003 was untimely.
Claimant’s failure to file his application for review in a timely fashion with the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. Bass v. Yong Min Kim, 101 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003). Section 288.200 provides no mechanism for filing a late application for review with the Commission and the procedures are mandatory. McAtee v. BioMedical Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002). The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted and Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
. All statutory references RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.