Opinion
C.A. No. S10A-09-007.
Submitted: March 8, 2011.
Decided: April 14, 2011.
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board: AFFIRMED.
Gail M. Hammond, Ellendale, Delaware.
Lauren Pisapia Cirrinicione, Esquire, Murphy Landon, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dear Ms. Hammond and Counsel:
Gail M. Hammond appeals the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board"). The Board denied Ms. Hammond's untimely application for further review of an Appeals Referee's dismissal of her appeal from a Claims Deputy's determination that she was disqualified for unemployment benefits. The Board's decision is affirmed for the reasons stated below.
Nature and Stage of the Proceedings
Ms. Hammond worked for Allen Family Foods ("Allen's") in December 2009 when she either quit or was fired for failure to report to work as scheduled. By a decision dated July 6, 2010, a Claims Deputy found Ms. Hammond did not qualify for unemployment benefits because she resigned her position without showing good cause for doing so. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), the Claims Deputy's decision became final on July 16, 2010. Ms. Hammond filed an appeal of that decision on July 19, 2010. An Appeals Referee scheduled a hearing, only on the issue of timeliness, for August 16, 2010. Ms. Hammond failed to appear for the hearing and her appeal was dismissed via written decision mailed August 17, 2010. Any appeal of this dismissal was due on or before August 27, 2010. Ms. Hammond filed an appeal with the Board on September 7, 2010. The Board declined to exercise its discretion to accept the late appeal by way of written decision mailed September 23, 2010. Ms. Hammond appealed that decision to this Court.
Discussion
When reviewing the decisions of the Board, this Court must determine whether the Board's findings and conclusions of law are free from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. "Substantial evidence" is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." The Court's review is limited: "It is not the appellate court's role to weigh the evidence, determine credibility questions or make its own factual findings, but merely to decide if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings."
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); Pochvatilla v. U.S. Postal Serv., 1997 WL 524062 (Del. Super.); 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) ("In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the [Board] as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law.").
Gorrell v. Division of Vocational Rehab., 1996 WL 453356, at *2 (Del. Super.).
McManus v. Christiana Serv. Co., 1197 WL 127953, at *1 (Del. Super.).
In this case, the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Ms. Hammond wishes for this Court to consider personal circumstances that allegedly interfered with her ability to report to work on time and her untimely appeals in this case. Although the Court is sympathetic to Ms. Hammond's predicament, this Court does not hear new evidence. The Claims Deputy's determination that Ms. Hammond is disqualified from unemployment benefits is final and binding because no timely appeal of the matter was filed. Ms. Hammond failed to appear at the hearing before the Appeals Referee to be heard on the issue of why her appeal was untimely filed. She then failed to file a timely appeal to the Appeals Referee's dismissal of her appeal. The Board found the Appeals Referee's decision was mailed to Ms. Hammond's last address of record with the Department of Labor on August 17, 2010, and not returned by USPS as undeliverable. That finding is supported by the record.
19 Del. C. § 3318(b) ("Unless a claimant . . . files an appeal within 10 calendar days after such Claims Deputy's determination was mailed to the last known address of the claimant . . ., the Claims Deputy's determination shall be final and benefits shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith.")
The Board has the discretion to accept an appeal sua sponte pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320. However, the Board did not abuse its discretion in failing to do so when Ms. Hammond repeatedly missed filing deadlines with the Department of Labor without explanation. The Board's decision is free from legal error.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Board's decision denying Ms. Hammond's application for further review is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.