Opinion
C.A. No. 00A-02-003 HDR
Submitted: August 22, 2000
Decided: October 18, 2000
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED
Kevin M. Boyd, Camden, Delaware, pro Se.
James J. Hanley, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
ORDER
This 18th day of October, 2000, upon consideration of briefs filed by the parties and the record below, it appears that:
(1) Appellant, Kevin M. Boyd ("Boyd"), filed this appeal from the February 2, 2000 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") dismissing his appeal.
(2) On February 22, 1999, Boyd was discharged for theft and dishonesty from his position as a pre-loader with United Parcel Service ("UPS"). Although Boyd denied stealing anything from UPS, he did admit he was aware of the thefts, did not report the thefts to his employer, acted as a lookout for fellow employees committing thefts, and held stolen goods for one of the thieves.
(3) On March 30, 1999, a Claims Deputy, citing the failure of the employer, UPS, to return phone calls and provide complete details, determined that Boyd was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he was fired without just cause. UPS appealed this decision to the Appeals Referee in a letter postmarked April 9, 1999. On May 18, 1999, the Appeals Referee found that Boyd was fired with just cause and reversed the decision of the Claims Deputy. On January 21, 2000, Boyd appealed this decision to the Board, and the Board dismissed the appeal as untimely and refused to act sua sponte. On February 23, 2000, Boyd appealed the Board's decision to this Court.
(4) In his opening brief, Boyd alleges that he received inadequate notice of the hearing with the Appeals Referee and questions the amount of money he may owe due to overpayment. However, the only issue before the Court is the appropriateness of the Board's decision not to exercise jurisdiction over Boyd's late appeal. This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appeals Referee's denial of benefits. Even so, it appears from the record that Boyd did attend the hearing, and any questions surrounding money owed due to overpayment may be challenged whenever the Division of Unemployment Insurance seeks to collect the money.
Greene v. J.R. Blevins, and Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., C.A. No. 98A-12-017, 2000 WL 303325, Goldstein, J. (March 9, 2000) (ORDER).
Id.
(5) There are two issues in this appeal. The first is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Boyd filed an untimely appeal and whether the Board's proceedings are free from legal error. The second is whether the Board abused its discretion by refusing to act sua sponte, or on its own motion, to hear the case despite the delinquency of the filing.
Capaldi v. Sentry Homes, Inc. and Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., CA. No. 99A-05-006, 2000 WL 973139, Goldstein, J. (June 12, 2000) (ORDER) (citing Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308 (1975)).
Id. (citing Thornton v. Caldwell Flexible, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95A-10-001, Barron, J. (Apr. 19, 1996) (ORDER)).
(6) Under 19 Del. C. § 3318(c), an appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after the decision is mailed. Otherwise, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal unless it acts sua sponte. Boyd does not dispute that he appealed the Appeals Referee's May 18, 1999 decision nearly eight months after the deadline. In fact, he has offered no explanation for the delay in filing. Given these facts, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Boyd filed an untimely appeal and I further find no error of law.
Chrysler Corp. v. Dillon, Del. Supr., 327 A.2d 604, 605 (1974).
(7) Despite the jurisdictional limit found in 19 Del. C. § 3318(c), it is well settled Delaware law that the Board may, on its own motion, hear cases filed beyond the ten-day appeal deadline under the broad power provided in 19 Del. C. § 3320. However, this power should be exercised in only a few limited cases where either an error on behalf of the Department of Labor has caused the claimant to file an untimely appeal, or in other severe circumstances where justice requires intervention by the Board.
Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Supr., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (1991); 3320 provides that:
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board may on its own motion, affirm, modify, or set aside any decision of an appeal tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in such case or direct the taking of additional evidence or may permit any of the parties to such decision to initiate further appeal before it. The Department shall permit such further appeal by any of the parties interested in a decision of an appeal tribunal which is not unanimous and by the deputy whose decision has been overruled or modified by an appeal tribunal.
Funk, 591 A.2d at 225.
(8) Given the facts of this case, the Court finds that the Board did not abuse its discretion by refusing to act sua sponte. There is no evidence that a Department of Labor error or any other event beyond Boyd's control caused him to file his appeal eight months late. In Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.. the Delaware Supreme Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it refused to hear a case where the claimant allegedly received the appeals notification after the appeal period had run because the Postal Service delivered the notice to his parents, who lived on the same road. The Delaware Supreme Court explained that the Board should only act on its own motion where the situation "involved circumstances much more severe than those in [Funk]." No such circumstances exist here. Accordingly, the Board's refusal to act sua sponte was not an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 224.
Id. at 225.
For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision to dismiss Boyd's appeal, no legal error, and no abuse of discretion by the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.