Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.480 (2026)

Application for review, time limit

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

287.480. Application for review, time limit — when deemed filed — bond required, when. — 1. If an application for review is made to the commission within twenty days from the date of the award, the full commission, if the first hearing was not held before the full commission, shall review the evidence, or, if considered advisable, as soon as practicable hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses and shall make an award and file it in like manner as specified in section 287.470. Any notice of appeal, application or other paper required under this law to be filed with the division or the commission shall, when mailed to or transmitted by electronic facsimile meeting the requirements of the division and received by the division or the commission, be deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on the envelope or container in which such paper is received, or the date received if filed by facsimile. In instances where the last day for the filing of any such paper falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the filing shall be deemed timely if accomplished on the next day subsequent which is neither a Sunday or a legal holiday. When filing by electronic facsimile meeting the requirements of the division, the parties shall, on the same date as the facsimile transmission, mail by the United States mail the original and the requisite number of copies to the commission. In addition, the commission may allow filing of applications for review, briefs, motions, and other requests for relief with the commission by electronic means, in such manner as the commission may, by regulation, prescribe.

2. An employer who has been determined by the division to be an employer subject to and operating pursuant to this chapter and has also been determined to be uninsured may file an application for review but such application for review shall be accompanied with and attached to the application for review a bond which shall be conditioned for the satisfaction of the award in full, and if for any reason the appeal is dismissed or if the award is affirmed or modified, to satisfy in full such modification of the award as the commission may award. The surety on such bond shall be a bank, savings and loan institution or an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Missouri. No appeal to the commission shall be considered filed unless accompanied by such bond and such bond shall also be a prerequisite for appeal as provided in section 287.495 and such appeal pursuant to section 287.495 shall not be considered filed unless accompanied by such bond. If any other employer pursuant to section 287.040 would be liable, the employee shall be paid benefits from the bond until the bond is exhausted before the section 287.040 employer is required to pay.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3731, A.L. 1963 p. 410, A.L. 1974 S.B. 417, A.L. 1998 H.B. 1237, et al., A.L. 2021 S.B. 303)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3341

CROSS REFERENCE:

Workers' compensation claims to be reviewed only by administrative law judges, commission or appellate courts, 287.801

(1958) Application for review deemed made on date it was received by commission rather than on date it was deposited in mail so that application for review, mailed on April 29 and received by commission on April 30, of an award made on April 19 was not timely made and commission had no jurisdiction to review referee's award. Tabb v. McGinley (A.), 313 S.W.2d 745.

(1967) The filing of an application for review of a referee's award in a workmen's compensation case within the time prescribed by the statute provided for such a review is jurisdictional, and if the commission had no jurisdiction to review the referee's award then neither the circuit court nor the appeals court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the award of the commission. Luketich v. Krey Packing Co. (A.), 413 S.W.2d 29.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 123 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Abrams v. Ohio Pac. Express, 819 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Abrams v. Ohio Pac. Express, 819 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 37× “" § 287.480, RSMo 1949. The Tabb court did not state that the statute was subject to a rule of "literal and strict construction.”

Headrick v. Jackes-Evans Mfg. Co., 108 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 18× “Appellant contends that because section 287.480 is remedial in nature, it is to be liberally construed so that, in the interests of equity, the erroneously postmarked envelope that caused the Application to fail to satisfy the technical statutory requirements will not preclude…”

Stonecipher v. Poplar Bluff R1 Sch. Dist., 205 S.W.3d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Although Employer and Fund acknowledge the Commission reviewed this case under section 287.480, 7 the Commission’s first quoted sentence partially tracks section 287.”

Smith v. Ozark Lead Co., 741 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “" Section 287.480, RSMo 1978, provides: “If an application for review is made to the commission within twenty days from the date of the award, the full commission, if the first hearing was not held before the full commission, shall review the evidence, or, if considered…”

Dixon v. Stoam Indus., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 684 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 18× “However, a line of cases has developed addressing these issues in the context of section 287.480, governing workers compensation claims.”

Smith v. Richardson Bros. Roofing, 32 S.W.3d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 12× “The Commission cited section 287.480, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998, in holding that “[a]ny amendments to Applications for Review must be filed within the statutory 20 day time limit,” and dismissed the Amended Application for Review.”

Thomas v. Treasurer State of Mo.-custodian, 326 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 20× “) An “appeal from an original hearing” is a right afforded a claimant under section 287.480. Pursuant to section 287.”

Modlin v. Sun Mark, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “Section 287.480, RSMo 1978 provides for a method of review by the Commission of the ALJ’s award.”

Woodburn v. May Distrib. Co., Inc., 815 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “The Commission accepted for review the workers’ compensation claims now before this court pursuant to § 287.480, RSMo 1986. The appeal of Johnston is based upon the assertion by Johnston that he is not liable for payment of compensation.”

Knuckles v. Apex Indus., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 542 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “The Commission reasoned: In the instant case, employee’s Application for Review was filed some nineteen days after the last date when it could have been considered timely under [Section 287.480, RSMo (1986)]. The filing of an Application for Review of an administrative law…”

Wilson v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 892 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “While Abrams addresses the timing provisions of § 287.480, RSMo. 1986, dealing with the procedure to be followed when appealing a decision of an ALJ to the Commission, the same principle applies when a party appeals the decision of the Commission to the circuit court, § 287.”

Korte v. Fry-Wagner Moving & Storage Co., 922 S.W.2d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “In affirming and adopting the ALJ’s award, the Commission stated: The above-entitled workers’ compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission for review as provided by § 287.480 RSMo. Section 287.480 RSMo provides for review concerning the issue…”

Show all 123 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.