Opinion
C.A. No. 07A-08-004 WLW.
Submitted: March 10, 2008.
Decided: June 30, 2008.
Upon an Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Affirmed.
Augustine Dimkpa, pro se.
Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire of The Bayard Firm, Wilmington, Delaware and Howard K. Kurman, Esquire of Offit Kurman, Maple Lawn, Maryland; attorneys for Appellee.
ORDER
Appellant Augustine Dimkpa ("Appellant") (claimant-below) was employed at Chimes, District of Columbia ("Chimes") as a custodian at the Dover Air Force Base when he became injured. He took his available twelve weeks of Family Medical Leave from November 1, 2006 to January 23, 2007. On January 24, 2007, Appellant did not return to work. On that same day, Chimes assumed that he voluntarily abandoned his job and sent him a letter explaining that they could not hold open his position.
He filed a claim with the Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance ("the Division") who found that he was terminated unjustly and is therefore not disqualified from benefits pursuant to 19 Delaware Code § 3314(2). The Decision stated that benefits were to continue for each week Appellant met the requirement of 19 Delaware Code § 3315. That determination became final on May 17, 2007.
Title 19 Delaware Code § 3314(2) provides that an individual will be disqualified from benefits if terminated for just cause.
Case No. 40020259.
In determining eligibility, the Division found that Appellant's doctor's certificate indicated that Appellant was unable to work until April 1, 2007. They found that Appellant has four years of experience as a custodian and has experience as a secretary, but due to his injury he has paralysis in his fingers and is unable to type. They found that he has never answered phones before but is able to file. Therefore, he is unavailable for work because he has no skills that can accommodate his current restrictions. Pursuant to 19 Delaware Code § 3315(3), claimant must be able to, available for, and be actively seeking work to be eligible. The Division determined Appellant ineligible for receipt of benefits starting the week of April 21, 2007. That determination also became final on May 17, 2007.
See Case No. 40021531.
Appellant admits to receiving the notice of determination and asserts that he did not understand the appeal process.
Appellant was in the local unemployment office on June 4, 2007, to drop off paperwork including a certificate from his doctor indicating that he cannot work again until July 7, 2007, when he was told he needed to file an appeal. He filed an appeal that day, which was denied on June 15 for lack of timeliness. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB" or "Board") reviewed the decision on August 15, 2007 and found that the Division correctly held that Appellant's late appeal of the claims deputy's decision constitutes a jurisdictional bar to further proceedings in the matter.
See 19 Del.C. § 3318(b).
Appellant appeals the decision to this Court. In his appeal, he asserts that he was mentally too depressed to take action on the appeal, but does not provide evidence in support of his position.
Standard of Review
The scope of review for an appeal of a UIAB decision is limited to examining the record for errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence is present on the record to support the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Substantial evidence equates to "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." On appeal, this Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. Instead, this Court reviews the case to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient to support the Board's factual findings.
29 Del. C. § 10142(d); Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981).
Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981) ( quoting Consolo v. Federal Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965)).
ILC of Dover, Inc. v. Kelley, 1999 WL 1427805 *1 (Del.Super.Ct., Nov. 22, 1999) ( citing 29 Del. C. § 10142(d)).
Discussion
The UIAB's jurisdiction to hear appeals is statutory. Nineteen Delaware Code § 3318(c) provides
(c) Unless the appeal is withdrawn, an appeals tribunal, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the deputy. The parties shall be duly notified of the tribunal's decision, together with its reason therefor, which shall be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated pursuant to § 3320 of this title.
19 Del.C. § 3318(c).
Appellant missed the statutory deadline and therefore his appeal was correctly dismissed.
The UIAB can skirt the jurisdictional requirements in severe cases, but this case does not rise to that level. In Appellant's appeal to this Court, he acknowledges receipt of the decision and asserts that during the ten-day time period, he was mentally depressed and did not realize the time limitations or the appeal process. Unfortunately, the ten-day period is statutory. Having found no error of law, this Court finds further that there is substantial evidence that Appellant missed the statutory deadline.
Nineteen Delaware Code § 3320 provides:
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (UIAB) may on its own motion, affirm, modify, or reverse any decision of an appeal tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted to the appeal tribunal or it may permit any of the parties to such decision to initiate further appeal before it. The Unemployment UIAB shall remand a case to the appeal tribunal to supplement the existing evidence when it is determined to be insufficient to form a substantial basis for a decision. Appeals to the UIAB may be made by the parties to a disputed unemployment insurance claim, as well as by the claims deputy whose decision is modified or reversed by an appeals tribunal. The UIAB shall promptly notify all interested parties of its findings and decision.19 Del.C. § 3320(a).
Conclusion
The decision of the Board is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.