Background
Torie Nave worked for Barnes-Jewish Hospital until her employment was terminated in September 2025. A Division of Employment Security deputy found that Nave had been discharged for misconduct—dishonesty concerning a family member’s death and related bereavement leave and pay—and disqualified her from unemployment benefits under section 288.050. Nave appealed, disputing the employer’s account and asserting that she had not received paid bereavement leave.
The Appeals Tribunal scheduled a telephone hearing and warned that Nave’s appeal would be dismissed if she failed to participate. Nave did not call in for the hearing, and the tribunal dismissed her appeal. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed, concluding that Nave’s allegations, even if true, did not establish good cause for her nonparticipation. Nave then appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, arguing only that the misconduct determination was erroneous.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed Nave’s appeal. The court explained that its review was confined to issues decided by the Commission. The Commission had addressed only whether Nave alleged good cause for failing to participate in the Appeals Tribunal hearing; it did not decide whether her discharge constituted misconduct.
Because Nave’s appellate argument challenged the underlying misconduct determination but did not challenge the Commission’s good-cause ruling, she failed to address the sole basis of the Commission’s decision. The court therefore deemed the appeal abandoned and concluded that Nave had presented no appealable issue for review.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial review of an unemployment-benefits decision is limited to issues actually determined by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.
- A claimant appealing the dismissal of an administrative appeal must challenge the Commission’s stated ground for dismissal.
- Arguments about the merits of an underlying misconduct determination cannot substitute for a challenge to a dispositive failure-to-participate ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that issue preservation is critical in administrative appeals. When the Commission resolves a case on a procedural ground, an appellant must directly attack that ruling before an appellate court can consider any underlying benefits dispute.
For practitioners, the case highlights the importance of distinguishing between the merits of an unemployment claim and the procedural basis of the Commission’s order. Failing to brief the issue the Commission actually decided can result in dismissal without review of the merits.