Summary
holding that the Board abused its discretion in deeming an appeal untimely filed without first holding a hearing to consider claimant's allegation that he had mailed an earlier appeal that the DOL failed to place in his file
Summary of this case from Milnamow v. E.F. Technologies, Inc.Opinion
C.A. No. 98A-12-017-CG.
Date Submitted: February 22, 2000.
Date Decided: March 9, 2000.
UPON APPEAL FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD. REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORDER
This 9th day of March, 2000, upon review of the papers filed by the parties in this case and the record of the proceedings below, it appears that:
(1) On July 5, 1998, Appellant, Robert R. Greene, filed a claim for unemployment compensation with the Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance. On August 20, 1998, a Claims Deputy determined that Greene was disqualified from receipt of benefits because he was discharged with good cause in connection with his work.
(2) On September 8, 1998, Greene appealed the decision of the Claims Deputy. On September 23, 1998, an Appeals Referee held a hearing and affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy that Greene was disqualified from receipt of benefits. The Appeals Referee issued her decision on September 29, 1998. The decision stated that the last day to file an appeal was October 9, 1998.
(3) On November 3, 1998, Greene filed a notice of appeal from the Appeals Referee's decision. In his letter accompanying the appeal form, Greene stated, "This is the third, 3rd letter of (appeals) which I have sent. The second letter of appeals, was never placed in my files. I received 2 two other claims forms to fill out sense [sic] that. One for 10-10-98 and the other for 10-27-98. Which I filled out and sent back in."
(4) The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board issued a hearing notice for December 9, 1998, noting correctly that the only issue before the Board was the timeliness of Greene's appeal. However, for reasons not set forth in the record, the Board did not hold a hearing to consider the late appeal filed by Greene despite its notation that both Greene and a representative of J.R. Blevins were present. Instead, the Board, without holding a hearing, issued a decision on December 9, 1999 dismissing the late appeal.
(5) Greene subsequently appealed the Board's decision to this Court pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3323(a), arguing both that the Board erred by refusing to accept the late appeal and the merits of the denial of his benefits. Initially, the Court notes that the only issue before the Court is the appropriateness of the Board's decision not to take jurisdiction over Greene's late appeal. Although Appellees are correct in their assertion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Greene's denial of benefits because the Board did not accept jurisdiction over the late appeal, Greene alleges in his grounds for appeal that the Board erred by dismissing his late appeal. The Court notes that, despite the Board's failure to hold a hearing, it issued a written decision. Therefore, the Court clearly has jurisdiction to consider the Board's decision to dismiss the appeal.
(6) This Court's review of the Board's decision is two-fold. First, the Court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Greene filed an untimely appeal and whether the Board's proceedings are free from legal error. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308 (1975). Next, the Court must determine whether the Board abused its discretion by not exercising, sua sponte, its power to hear the case on the merits despite the fact that the appeal was untimely. Thornton v. Caldwell Flexible, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95A-10-001, Barron, J. (Apr. 19, 1996), Order at 2.
(7) Under 19 Del. C. § 3320, the Board may, on its own motion, hear cases filed beyond the ten-day appeal deadline set forth in 19 Del. C. § 3318(b). However, this power is limited to cases "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 the inaction." Thornton at 2 (quoting Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Supr., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (1991)).
19 Del. C. § 3318(b) states, in pertinent part, "Unless a claimant or a last employer who has submitted a timely and completed separation notice in accordance with § 3317 of this title files an appeal within 10 calendar days after such Claims Deputy's determination was mailed to the last known addresses of the claimant and the last employer, the Claims Deputy's determination shall be final and benefits shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith."
19 Del. C. § 3320 states, in pertinent part, "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."
(8) Greene does not dispute that the appeal contained in the record was filed past the ten day deadline. Rather, Greene argues that he filed an earlier appeal that was never placed in his file. Therefore, the Court must determine whether the Board abused its discretion by accept jurisdiction over Greene's late appeal based upon the contents of the record before it. Absent a finding of abuse of discretion, the Court must uphold the Board's decision to deny Greene's appeal. Funk, 591 A.2d at 225.
(9) In its decision, the Board acknowledged that Greene stated that the reason he filed his appeal late was that he mailed an earlier appeal that was not in his file. However, the Board concluded, ". . . there has been no evidence to suggest that the appeal was late due to Department of Labor error."
(10) The Court finds that the Board's decision to dismiss Greene's appeal without holding a hearing to further consider his contentions that he filed an earlier appeal constitutes an abuse of discretion. Greene's allegation that he filed a timely appeal to the Board that was never placed in his file, if determined to be true, would clearly constitute error by the Department of Labor. As a result, the Court finds that, in this instance, the Board committed an abuse of discretion in failing to hold a hearing to determine whether it should accept jurisdiction over Greene's appeal.
Therefore, the Court hereby REVERSES the decision of the Board dismissing Greene's appeal and REMANDS the matter to the Board so that it may hold a hearing to determine whether the late filing of Greene's appeal was due to Department of Labor error, as Greene contends.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Carl Goldstein, Judge