Summary
In Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 112, 24 OBR 304, 493 N.E.2d 959, the court rejected arguments raised by a claimant for unemployment compensation who missed a deadline for filing a request for reconsideration.
Summary of this case from Davis v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. ServOpinion
No. 85-1806
Decided June 18, 1986.
Administrative law — Unemployment compensation — Appellate procedure — Estoppel principles may not be applied against the state, when.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Appellant, Lanny K. Griffith, applied for unemployment compensation after he was terminated from his job at the J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Distribution Center. On July 25, 1983, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES") disallowed Griffith's application. The notification form Griffith received from OBES contained the following information:
"APPEAL RIGHTS: If you think this determination is incorrect as to fact or law, or if you have additional facts which might affect the determination, you may file a request for reconsideration in person at any bureau office. You will be given assistance in preparing your written request. If you desire, you may write directly to the local office in which the claim is filed. To be considered timely, your request must be filed in person or postmarked no later than fourteen calendar days after the date entered in item 6 on this form. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
Griffith gave the following testimony at his hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review: On August 5, 1983, Griffith went to the OBES office and told an OBES employee that he wanted to appeal. The employee gave Griffith a blank "Request for Reconsideration" form. Griffith asked the employee if he could take the form home and mail it back after formulating his reasons for seeking review and having the form typed. He anticipated that it would take a week for him to complete the form. The employee replied that this would not be a problem. She then date-stamped the form for August 5, 1983 and said that this would "cover" him. Griffith believed at this point that the time requirement for his appeal had been satisfied.
Griffith's completed Request for Reconsideration form was received by OBES on August 29, 1983, thirty-five days after the administrator's decision had been mailed. The administrator dismissed the request as untimely, and the dismissal was upheld by the board of review. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court.
The court of appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County in Ruozzo v. Giles (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 8, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination on the following question:
"Whether or not the doctrine of estoppel applies against the state to extend the time within which an employee has to file an administrative appeal, where the employee is properly notified in writing by the state agency of the time limit for filing an appeal, but subsequently receives and relies upon the mistaken advice of a state employee that the time limit can be extended."
Sue Livensparger, Legal Aid Society of Columbus, Thomas W. Weeks and Ohio State Legal Services Assn., for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Patrick A. Devine, for appellee Administrator.
Lackey, Nusbaum, Harris, Reny Torzewski, Gerald Lackey, Richard W. McHugh and Jordan Rossen, urging reversal for amicus curiae, International Union, U.A.W.
Carolyn L. Carter and Anita Myerson, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Cleveland Council of Unemployed Workers.
Robert M. Clyde, urging reversal for amicus curiae, United Steelworkers of America, Local 1418.
R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) provides claimants with the right to request reconsideration of the denial of an application for unemployment benefits. A request for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the denial was mailed. R.C. 4141.28(G)(1). Absent this statute, no such right of appeal would exist. See Ford v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 1, 4 [30 O.O. 236]. This court has consistently held that when a statute confers a right of appeal, the appeal can only be perfected in the manner prescribed by that statute. See McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279 [18 O.O.3d 463]; Holmes v. Union Gospel Press (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 187, 188 [18 O.O.3d 405]; Zier v. Bur. of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 125 [38 O.O. 573].
Griffith's appearance at the OBES office within the statutory time period for requesting reconsideration did not satisfy the requirement in R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) that a written request be timely filed. Because his completed form was not received by OBES until twenty-one days after the time limit, Griffith did not comply with the statute.
Griffith argues, however, that his right to appeal is nevertheless protected by equitable principles of estoppel. This argument is based on his testimony that the OBES employee date-stamped his form and told him that this would "cover" him. We reject Griffith's argument. This court has previously refused to apply principles of estoppel against the state, its agencies or its agents, under circumstances involving an exercise of governmental functions. See Chevalier v. Brown (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 61, 63; Besl Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 146, 150 [74 O.O.2d 262]; State, ex rel. Svete, v. Bd. of Elections (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 16, 18 [33 O.O.2d 139]. See, also, Schweiker v. Hansen (1981), 450 U.S. 785, rehearing denied (1981), 451 U.S. 1032. The OBES notification form adequately informed Griffith of the time limit for filing his request for reconsideration. We see no reason to depart from precedent and apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel under the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
C. BROWN and DOUGLAS, JJ., dissent.