Opinion
C.A. No. 09A-03-005 MJB.
Submitted: November 4, 2010.
Decided: February 22, 2010.
Upon Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board., AFFIRMED.
Copeland Martin, III, Middletown, DE, Pro Se Appellant. Wackenhut Security, Newark, DE, Appellee.
Philip Johnson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Appellee.
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an appeal by Copeland Martin, III ("Appellant") from a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the "Board") that the Appellant's appeal from the decision of the Appeals Referee ("Referee") was untimely. Citing 19 Del. C. § 3320, the Board declined to exercise jurisdiction sua sponte to hear the merits of Appellant's claim because there was no evidence of any error on the part of the Department of Labor ("DOL") which might have delayed the filing of his appeal.
Nineteen Del. C. § 3320 empowers the Board to exercise, sua sponte, its power to hear a case on the merits despite its untimeliness "where there has been some administrative error on the part of the Department of Labor which deprived the claimant of some opportunity to file a timely appeal, or in those cases where the interest of justice would not be served by inaction." Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2008, Appellant filed an Original Claim for unemployment benefits and subsequently did receive unemployment compensation. On October 27, 2008, a Notice of Determination was mailed to Appellant notifying him that he was liable for a recoupment of a non-fraudulent overpayment of benefits to which he was not entitled.
On November 7, 2008, Appellant appealed that determination to the Appeals Referee. A hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2008 to address the issue of repayment, and notice of same was mailed on November 18, 2008 to 505 Sally Lane, Middletown, Delaware 19709, Appellant's last known address. Appellant failed to appear at the hearing, and the Referee dismissed the case and issued a decision doing so on December 8, 2008. The Referee's decision was sent to Appellant's address and contained instructions on how to appeal. On the front page of the decision, is the notation: "Last Day to File Appeal: 12/18/08."
The Appellant provided his mailing address on the Claimant Notice of Receipt of Benefit Rights and Responsibilities form, filed on June 6, 2008 and on the Department of Labor Request for Overpayment form, filed October 16, 2008.
On January 5, 2009, Appellant filed an appeal from the dismissal with the Board. In his appeal, he wrote, "My name is Copeland Martin and as of today I just receive[d] my Letter of The Determination of My Unemployment Insurance." Appellant provided no further explanation. Since the Referee's determination letter was timely sent to Appellant's address on December 8, 2009, the Board declined to hear the matter, affirmed the Referee's decision, and determined that the Claimant's late appeal was jurisdictionally barred.
Appellant timely appealed the Board's decision to this Court on March 10, 2009 and argued that the date on which he received the Referee's decision, by mail, is in question.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering an appeal of this nature, the Court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Appellant filed an untimely appeal and whether the Board's proceedings were free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is the responsibility of the Board to resolve questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence; this Court may determine only whether there is satisfactory proof to support a factual finding.
Ingram v. Barrett's Business Service, Inc., 794 A.2d 1160 (Del. 2007).
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988).
Abex Corp. v. Todd, 235 A.2d 271, 273 (Del. Super. Oct. 24, 1967).
ANALYSIS
A claimant who receives an adverse decision from the Referee has ten days after the decision is mailed to appeal that decision to the Board. If the claimant fails to file an appeal within ten days, the Referee's decision is final, and the Board is jurisdictionally barred from considering the merits of a claimant's appeal. "Where the lateness of the appeal is due to the claimant's unintentional or accidental actions, and not due to an administrative error, the Referee's determination will become final and § 3318(c) will jurisdictionally bar the claim from further appeal."The Delaware Supreme Court has interpreted 19 Del. C. § 3320 as providing the Board with the authority to act sua sponte beyond the ten-day appeal period to consider a case where no valid appeal has been filed by the parties under certain limited and severe circumstances. Cases in which the Board assumes jurisdiction sua sponte to consider an untimely appeal are "few and far between" and involve "severe" circumstances.
Crawford v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1999 WL 458725, (Del. Super. June 18, 1999).
Id.
The Board found that Claimant's appeal of the Referee's decision was untimely because he filed his appeal beyond the ten-day appeal period set forth in 19 Del. C. § 3318(c). As a result, the Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The record reflects that Appellant filed his appeal on January 5, 2008, eighteen days after the expiration of the appeal period and provided no explanation that would support a determination by the Board that further review was necessary or appropriate. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion, and the Court finds that it is free from legal error.
The Court also finds that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the Referee's determination, or when it declined to hear the appeal pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320. Appellant had an opportunity to present a basis for the Board to exercise jurisdiction and did not do so. There is no evidence that there was any administrative error on the part of the Department of Labor in sending the notification to Appellant's last known address. Properly addressed mail is presumed received. Appellant maintains that a question remains as to when he received the Referee's determination. The Court finds that such a claim, with no further contention, does provide a sufficient legal basis for the Board to act, sua sponte, in the interest of justice, to allow the appeal.
Robledo v. Stratus, 2001 WL 428684, *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 27, 2001).
CONCLUSION
The Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appeal as untimely. There is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Referee's decision was timely mailed to Appellant, and the Appellant failed to file a timely appeal. The Board's decision to deny Appellant's appeal is free from legal error, and the Board did not otherwise abuse its discretion. Therefore, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.