Stanton v. Div. Of Employment Sec., WD 71646.
Decision Date | 14 September 2010 |
Docket Number | No. WD 71646.,WD 71646. |
Citation | 321 S.W.3d 486 |
Parties | Aan STANTON, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Aan Stanton, New York, NY, Appellant Acting Pro Se.
Ninion S. Riley, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LISA WHITE HARDWICK, C.J., JAMES EDWARD WELSH, and KAREN KING MITCHELL, JJ.
Aan Stanton appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his claim for unemployment benefits. The Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the appeals tribunal dismissing Stanton's appeal for failure to appear. We dismiss Stanton's appeal.
Stanton was terminated from his employment with New Prime, Inc., on June 11, 2009. He subsequently filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Division of Employment Security. New Prime filed a letter of protest alleging that Stanton was discharged because New Prime's safety department disqualified him due to his having “numerous citations.” A Division deputy issued a determination that Stanton was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with work.
Stanton appealed the deputy's decision to the Division's appeals tribunal. On August 10, 2009, the appeals tribunal mailed Stanton a “Notice of Telephone Hearing.” The notice set Stanton's case to be heard by telephone on August 20, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. The notice contained clear instructions directing Stanton to provide an accurate telephone number at which he could be reached at the time of the hearing. The front of the notice said in bold type: “Your case may be dismissed if you fail to provide an accurate telephone number.” In addition to the instructions on the front of the notice, the back of the notice contained further instructions and included these warnings in bold type:
At 12:30 and 12:35 p.m. on August 20, 2009, the appeals tribunal referee called the number Stanton had provided. Both times, the referee received voice mail. The appeals tribunal dismissed Stanton's appeal for failure to appear. 1 Thereafter, Stanton filed an application for review with the Commission. In his application, Stanton stated that he “did not understand” that he “was to stay at home on the 20th and wait on a call.” The Commission issued its decision affirming and adopting the appeals tribunal's decision. Stanton requested that the Commission reconsider its decision, but the Commission denied his request.
Stanton filed this appeal. In his sole point relied on, he claims that the Division deputy's decision denying him unemployment benefits misapplies the law and is not supported by evidence showing that he willfully and knowingly engaged in misconduct connected with work. Stanton does not allege any error on the part of the Commission with respect to the Commission's decision to affirm the dismissal of his case for failure to appear at the hearing.
We review...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. Div. of Emp't Sec.
...in his brief.2 A question not presented in an appellant’s brief will be considered abandoned on appeal. Stanton v. Div. of Emp't Sec. , 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).In Stanton , the appellant’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits was dismissed by the Commission due to h......
-
Wooden v. Div. of Emp't Sec., WD 74308.
...review of the Commission's decision in an unemployment compensation case is governed by section 288.210.1Stanton v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo.App. W.D.2010). On appeal, we may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the Commission on the followi......
-
Sanders v. Div. of Emp't Sec.
...“[w]e review the Commission's decision, ... and not the decision of the Division deputy or appeals tribunal.” Stanton v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo.App. W.D.2010). It is only when the Commission adopts the appeals tribunal's findings that “we are necessarily called upon to ......
-
Hubbell Mech. Supply Co. v. Lindley
...“[w]e review the Commission's decision ... and not the decision of the Division deputy or [A]ppeals [T]ribunal,” Stanton v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo.App.2010); however, where as here, the Commission adopts the findings of the Appeals Tribunal we are necessarily called upo......