288.200. Appeals to labor and industrial relations commission. — 1. Any of the parties (including the division) to any decision of an appeals tribunal, may file with the commission within thirty days following the date of notification or mailing of such decision, an application to have such decision reviewed by the commission. The commission may allow or deny an application for review. If an application is allowed, the commission may affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside the decision of the appeals tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in such case or may take additional evidence or may remand the matter to the appeals tribunal with directions. Any additional hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of subsection 2 of section 288.190. The commission shall promptly notify the parties of its decision and its reasons therefor. If an application for review is denied, the decision of the appeals tribunal shall be deemed to be the decision of the commission for the purpose of judicial review and shall be subject to judicial review within the time and in the manner provided for with respect to decisions of the commission except that the time limitations shall run from the date of notice of the order of the commission denying the application for review.
2. Any decision of the commission shall become final ten days after the date of notification or mailing thereof to the parties. Any right, fact or matter in issue, directly based upon or necessarily involved in a determination or redetermination which has become final or in a decision on appeal which has become final, shall be conclusive with respect to the parties who had notice of such determination, redetermination, or decision for all the purposes of the employment security law in any other proceeding; except that, the commission may on its own motion and by a written decision reconsider any determination or redetermination or decision wherein any such right, fact or matter at issue was determined or necessarily involved when it appears that such reconsideration is essential to accomplish the object and purposes of the law. Judicial review of any decision of the commission shall be permitted only after the party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted the administrative remedies as provided by this law and the rules and regulations of the division.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
167
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case:
Brown v. Mocap, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
Brown v. Mocap, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “Section 288.200, RSMo 2000, requires that an application for review to the Commission shall be postmarked or filed within thirty days of the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision.”
Bresnahan v. May Dep't Stores Co., 726 S.W.2d 327 (Mo. 1987).
· cites it 6× “Section 288.200, RSMo 1986. In determining the issue of collateral estoppel, the nature of this hearing must be considered.”
Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “A party to any decision of an appeals tribunal may file with the Commission within thirty days following the date of notification or mailing of such decision, an application to have that decision reviewed by the Commission.”
Boles v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 353 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “§ 288.200. Boles filed her application on March 21, 2011 — forty-nine days after the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision.”
McAtee v. Bio-Med. Applications of Missouri, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 894 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Section 288.200, RSMo 2000, requires that an appeal to the Commission shall be postmarked or filed within thirty days of the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal’s decision.”
Joseph Sanders v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 417 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “On January 7, *897 2013, the Commission dismissed Sanders’s application for review “pursuant to section 288.200 RSMo, 1 because it was neither postmarked nor received within thirty (30) days after the Appeals Tribunal Decision was mailed.”
Huckaby v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 363 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “The Commission issued its order stating that the “Application for Review is dismissed pursuant to Section 288.200 RSMo, because it was neither postmarked nor received within thirty (30) days after the Appeals Tribunal Decision was mailed.”
Con-Way Truckload, Inc. v. Wood, 511 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× ““Section 288.200 requires the Commission to issue a decision and ‘its reasons therefor.”
Truel v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 166 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The Commission dismissed the application for review, concluding it was untimely under section 288.200, RSMo 2000. Claimant now appeals to this Court.”
Lauderdale v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 605 S.W.2d 174 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Thereafter, on November 18, 1975, appellant filed an Application for Review and on February 10,1976, the Labor and Industrial Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) denied her application, thereby adopting as its own the decision of the Appeals Referee § 288.200 RSMo. 1969.…”
Hauenstein v. Houlihan's Restaurants, Inc., 381 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The Commission dismissed the application for review as untimely, pursuant to Section 288.200 RSMo (2000), 1 because it was not postmarked or received within 30 days after the Appeals Tribunal’s decision was mailed.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.200(1) — 10 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.