Opinion
C.A. No. 03A-04-015-FSS.
Submitted: March 19, 2004.
Decided: June 25, 2004.
Upon Appeal From the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
ORDER
1. Appellant/Claimant-Below, Steve W. Han, filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits after leaving work at Red Lobster's Restaurant on July 21, 2002. Han's departure came when the restaurant failed an internal inspection. According to Red Lobster, Han announced that he quit, turned in his keys and walked out. Han's claim seems to be that after the restaurant failed inspection, he was terminated without warning.
2. A claims deputy and an appeals referee denied Han's claim for benefits because he voluntarily left his job without good cause.
3. Han appealed the referee's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Han, however, failed to appear at the Board's March 12, 2003 hearing and the Board dismissed Han's appeal for failure to prosecute.
4. Han did not explain his failure to appear at the Board's hearing, nor did he ask for a rehearing. Instead, Han filed this appeal.
See Morris v. Southern Metals Processing Company, 530 A.2d 673 (Del. 1987) (claimants may request rehearing, but it is within Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's discretion to deny request).
5. Han, however, did not file a brief in support of his appeal here. Instead, Han filed two short letters, dated August 4, 2003 and February 7, 2004.
6. The letters basically inform the court that an appeal was filed, state that Han was terminated from employment without just cause and therefore wrongly denied benefits, and provide the court with Han's home phone number.
7. Han has never explained why he failed to appear for the Board's hearing on March 12, 2003, nor has he ever explained how he believes the appeals referee's decision was incorrect.
8. The court recognizes that Red Lobster failed to appear at one point during the administrative proceedings. But unlike Han, Red Lobster asked for a new hearing after satisfactorily explaining its lapse. Again, Han offers no explanation, no request for a new hearing and no reason why the claims deputy and appeals referee are wrong.
For the foregoing reasons, it appears that Han failed to prosecute his appeal before the Board and the Board's dismissal, therefore, was justified. It further appears that Han has all but abandoned his appeal to the court. For those reasons, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED. It also appears, from the record presented, that Han quit his job. Thus, he was not entitled to benefits.
See, e.g., Robinson v. Visiting Nurse Association, Del. Super., C.A. No. 99A-10-003, Quillen, J. (Jan. 28, 2000) (Letter Op.) (citations omitted) (where claimant fails to appear at hearing without explanation, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is justified in dismissing appeal).
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19 Del. C. § 3315(1) (1995) (individuals disqualified from benefits when they leave work voluntarily without good cause).