Opinion
Case No. 20021079-CA.
Filed July 3, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Daniel L. Dyer, Salt Lake City, Petitioner Pro Se.
Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.
Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Bench.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Daniel L. Dyer filed what this court has construed to be a timely petition for rehearing, pursuant to rule 35 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Dyer contends that this court erred in its decision of May 8, 2003 in determining that Dyer had not timely filed his petition for review of the agency determination. Dyer indicates that he filed a timely motion for reconsideration with the Workforce Appeals Board and, therefore, his petition for judicial review was required to be filed within thirty days of the Board's denial of that motion, rather than thirty days from the initial decision.
This court issued an order requiring that an answer be filed by the Department of Workforce Services. An informal answer was received in which the Department concedes that Dyer's petition for judicial review was timely filed from the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration. Based on the concession, this court rescinds its decision of May 8, 2003 and concludes that Dyer's petition for review was timely filed.
We now address the issue of whether the petition presents questions for review that are so insubstantial so as not to merit further consideration. See Utah R.App.P. 10.
The parties have previously been afforded the opportunity to address this issue in memoranda that have been received and considered by this court.
This court will affirm the Board's factual findings when they are "`supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.'" Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(g) (1997);Whitear v. Labor Comm'n, 973 P.2d 982, 984 (Utah Ct.App. 1998); Midvag v. Department of Employment Sec., 735 P.2d 386 (Utah Ct.App. 1987). When findings of the Board are supported by evidence, and "its decision falls within the limits of reasonableness and rationality, we will not substitute our judgment" for that of the Board. Midvag, 735 P.2d at 386. Review of the record demonstrates that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
The Board's decision is summarily affirmed.
Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge, and Russell W. Bench, Judge, concur.