Richardson v. Div. of Emp't Sec., ED 107119

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Citation: 573 S.W.3d 125
• Docket Number: No. ED 107119,ED 107119
• Parties: Marjorie RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 16 April 2019

573 S.W.3d 125

Marjorie RICHARDSON, Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

No. ED 107119

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 16, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Marjorie Richardson, Acting Pro Se.

FOR RESPONDENT: Bart A. Matanic, 421 East Dunklin Street, P.O. Box 59, Jefferson City, MO 65104.

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Judge

Marjorie Richardson ("Appellant"), acting pro se, appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") denying her unemployment benefits. Because Appellant’s appeal so substantially fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 100.02 and 84.04 (2018)¹ that it preserves nothing for our review, we dismiss the appeal.

I. DISCUSSION

Initially, we note Appellant’s appeal fails to comply with Rule 100.02(c).

573 S.W.3d 127

Rule 100.02(c) requires an appellant seeking review of an administrative agency decision to specify in her notice of appeal "the decision sought to be reviewed[.]" Rule 100.02(c) ; Hoenig v. Corrigan Bros., Inc. , 983 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ; see also Bird v. Missouri Bd. of Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects , 259 S.W.3d 516, 520 n.6 (Mo. banc 2008) ( Rule 100.02 sets forth the procedural requirements of appeals taken from an administrative agency). We are "confined to review the decision identified in the notice of appeal." See In Interest of: B.P. , 547 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quotations omitted) (similarly holding with respect to Rule 81.04(a), the corresponding rule governing appeals from a trial court); Powell v. City of Kansas City , 472 S.W.3d 219, 229 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (similarly holding as to a former version of the rule governing appeals from a trial court).²

The notice of appeal filed by Appellant in this case only refers to the Commission’s August 22, 2018 decision denying her unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Commission’s decision is the only decision attached to Appellant’s notice of appeal. Accordingly, Appellant identified the Commission’s decision as the only decision for which review is sought, and our review on appeal is confined to that decision. See id. ; Rule 100.2(c). However, Appellant’s brief does not discuss Appellant’s proceedings before the Commission and fails to assert a claim on appeal challenging the Commission’s decision. Instead, Appellant’s brief solely refers to a separate civil case that she apparently brought against her former employer alleging workplace discrimination and harassment claims although that purported judgment is not mentioned in her notice of appeal. In particular, the sections of Appellant’s brief containing the statement of the case, procedural history, argument, and conclusion, as well as the relief requested by Appellant, all pertain to this separate civil case. Because Appellant fails to reference or attach a judgment, decree, or order related to her civil action in her notice of appeal, and because we are confined only to reviewing the Commission’s decision but Appellant’s brief does not assert a claim on appeal challenging that decision, Appellant has failed to preserve anything for our review and...