Heffner v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · Go Syfert
Heffner v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent. (moctapp, 2025-09-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lex Group, Inc. v. Carol Clift and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Bass, 101 S.W.3d at 334-35 (citation omitted) (“Although the claimant may have had a good reason for his late notice of appeal, neither section 288.200 nor section 288.210 provides a mechanism for seeking a special order to file a late notice of appeal.”); Culp v. Target Corp., 439 S.W.3d 824, 825 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citation omitted) (“While there are procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not apply to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288.”); Heffner v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Huiling CHEN, Claimant/appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Huiling Chen, Claimant/Appellant v. Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Karmann Christner, Claimant/Appellant v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gary Warfield, Claimant/Appellant v. Exel, Inc. and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Darren Collins, Jr., Claimant/Appellant v. Dillard's Inc. and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evangeline Culp, Claimant/Appellant v. Target Corporation and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rush v. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crockett v. MISSOURI SPORTSERVICE, LLC
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Heffner v. Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary HEFFNER, Claimant/Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent
ED 96690.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Aug 16, 2011.
345 S.W.3d 393
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1057
2011 WL 3569370
Mary Heffner, Overland, MO, Appellant Acting pro se., Michael E.C. Pritchett, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of Employment Security, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent Division of Employment Security.
Kurt S. Odenwald.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
KURT S. ODENWALD, Chief Judge.

Mary Heffner (Claimant) has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision regarding her claim for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. We dismiss the appeal.

In 2010, Claimant filed a claim seeking a determination of her eligibility for trade readjustment allowance or trade adjustment assistance (TRA/TAA) under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, which provides certain benefits to workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade. A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded Claimant was not entitled to the assistance because her separation date occurred more than one year before the petition for eligibility to apply was filed. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal of the Division, which affirmed the deputy’s determination. Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. On March 18, 2011, the Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting it is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

In employment matters governed by chapter 288, RSMo, the procedures outlined for appeal by statute are mandatory.[*394] Burch Food Services, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 945 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.App.W.D.1997). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, provides that a notice of appeal to this Court in such a matter is due within twenty days of the Commission’s decision becoming final. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on March 18, 2011. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before Monday, April 18, 2011. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210; section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant mailed her notice of appeal to the Commission. Under section 288.240, any notice of appeal is deemed filed “as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope.... ” The postmark on Claimant’s envelope was April 22, 2011, which is untimely under section 288.210.

Chapter 288 sets forth stringent guidelines for the filing of the notice of appeal and makes no provision for filing a late notice of appeal. Martinez v. Lea-Ed, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 809, 810 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). The provisions for a special order for late notice of appeal as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 81.07 do not apply to special statutory proceedings, such as those under Chapter 288. See, Holmes v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 488 S.W.2d 311, 314-15 (Mo.App.1972). Because Claimant’s notice of appeal was untimely under Chapter 288, our only recourse is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J., Concur.