Emily HAUENSTEIN, Appellant, v. HOULIHANS RESTAURANTS, INC. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents

Missouri Court of Appeals2012-10-09No. No. ED 97807

381 S.W.3d 380

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because Hauenstein did not raise the timeliness issue that the Commission decided, leaving no issue for the court to review.

Emily Hauenstein appealed a Commission decision dismissing her application for review as untimely filed. The underlying dispute concerned whether she was entitled to unemployment benefits after leaving her job at Houlihan's Restaurants. A deputy initially found she quit with good cause, but the Appeals Tribunal reversed that determination. Hauenstein then filed her request for Commission review 42 days after the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision, exceeding the 30-day deadline set by statute.

On appeal to the court, Hauenstein argued the merits of the Appeals Tribunal's decision, claiming she either had good cause to quit or was actually discharged. However, the Commission had not addressed these substantive issues; it had only ruled on the timeliness question. Because Hauenstein failed to challenge the timeliness ruling in her appellate brief, the court found no issue properly before it for review. The court declined to address the merits, noting it would be improper to serve as an advocate for Hauenstein by raising arguments she did not present.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a claimant can appeal merits issues when the Commission decided only a procedural timeliness question
Effect of abandoning the timeliness argument on appellate review rights
Deadlines for filing applications for review with the unemployment benefits Commission

Procedural posture

Hauenstein appealed the Commission's dismissal of her application for review as untimely, arguing the underlying merits of her unemployment benefits eligibility rather than challenging the timeliness determination.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Judge.

Emily Hauenstein (“Claimant”) appeals from the judgment of the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) dismissing her application for review as untimely filed. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy for the Division of Employment Security determined that Claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits, because she voluntarily quit with good cause attributable to her work or her employer, Houlihan’s Restaurants, Inc. (“Employer”). Employer appealed to the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security (“the Appeals Tribunal”). Claimant did not participate in the scheduled telephone hearing, and the Appeals Tribunal reversed the determination of the deputy.

On September 12, 2011, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to the parties reversing the deputy’s determination. On October 24, 2011, Claimant filed an application for review of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision with the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application for review as untimely, pursuant to Section 288.200 RSMo (2000), because it was not postmarked or received within 30 days after the Appeals Tribunal’s decision was mailed. This appeal follows.

On appeal, Claimant asserts the Appeals Tribunal erred in reversing the deputy’s determination. In her first point, Claimant argues she was eligible for unemployment benefits because she left her work for good cause attributable to Employer. In her second point, Claimant argues she did not quit but was in fact discharged from her employment. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting lack of jurisdiction.

“On appeal, this Court may address only those issues determined by the Commission and may not consider any issues that were not before the Commission.” Morgan v. Psych Care Consultants, LLC, 341 S.W.3d 217, 218 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). If a claimant does not address on appeal the issues decided by the Commission, then the claimant is deemed to have abandoned the appeal. Id.

Claimant’s points on appeal address only the merits of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision. However, the Commission did not address the substantive issues on appeal. Instead, the only issue determined by the Commission was the timeliness of Claimant’s application for review to the Commission. Because Claimant does not address the timeliness of her application in her brief, there is no issue presented for this Court to review and the appeal is deemed abandoned. Id. Although we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits, we will not do so when it would require us to act as an advocate for Claimant. Chase v. Baumann Prop. Co., 169 S.W.3d 891, 893 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

Claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., C.J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., concur.

. Section 288.200.1 provides that a party may file an application for review with the Commission within 30 days following the date of notification or mailing of the Appeals Tribunals decision. While here we are not obligated to address the timeliness of Claimant’s application for review because she did not raise the issue on appeal, we note that Claimants application was not timely. The Appeals Tribunal mailed their decision on September 12, 2011. Accordingly, Claimant’s application for review was due on October 12, 2011; however, Claimant did not file her application until October 24.

. The Division’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.