Q: How to appeal law suits judgement from unemployment claiming I was over paid witch is false

A: The unemployment appeals process is very strictly enforced. If you appealed the Deputy's Determination but failed to appear for the Appeals Hearing, your appeal was dismissed. Only evidence presented at the Appeals Hearing can be considered by the Appeals Tribunal in making its decision. Since you didn't show up, there was no evidence to consider, and your Appeal was dismissed. At that point, the only thing that will be considered by the Division is whether or not you had good cause for your failure to appear for your appeals hearing. Unless you can establish good cause for your failure to appear, you can never get the Division to even consider the underlying aspect of your claim. The former employer indicating that it would send in corrected information is irrelevant to your obligation to appear for the hearing. Your employer had no ability to fix anything because the system requires you to appear and present evidence.

You can certainly file an Application for Review to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, explaining your failure to appear at the hearing, but I think it highly unlikely that the Commission will consider your explanation a legitimate basis to remand the case back to the Appeals Tribunal. If you have already done that and it was denied, the only thing available to you at this point is to file an appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, that is likely a waste of time because the court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Commission. An appellate court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the Commission only where: (1) the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or (4) there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award. §288.210, RSMo 2000. In the absence of fraud, the Commission's factual findings are conclusive if supported by competent and substantial evidence. Id. Questions of law are reviewed independently, and the appellate court is not bound by the Commission’s conclusions of law or its application of law to the facts. Ayers v. Sylvia Thompson Residence Ctr., 211 S.W.3d 195, 197-98 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). On matters of witness credibility and resolution of conflicting evidence, the appellate court defers to the Commission's determinations. Id. [The court gives] deference to the Commission’s “resolution of conflicting evidence regarding a factual issue, the weighing of the evidence, and the credibility of witnesses.” Smith v. Greyhound Bus Company, 477 S.W.3d 55, 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citation omitted). Therefore, “[i]f the Commission has reached one of two possible conclusions as to a finding of fact, the reviewing court will not reach a contrary conclusion even if the court could reasonably do so.” Hoeft v. True Manufacturing Company, Inc., 604 S.W.3d 337, 339 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020).