Opinion
A21-1424
06-01-2022
Frederick D. Mann, Relator, v. Northern Pines Mental Health Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 45979713-4
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
ORDER OPINION
MICHELLE A. LARKIN, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Relator Frederick D. Mann was employed by respondent Northern Pines Mental Health Center, Inc. (Northern Pines) as a mental-health professional from April to October 2020. He was discharged on October 5 for failing to meet Northern Pines' expectations and for alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
2. Mann applied for unemployment benefits and received a determination of eligibility on October 22, 2020. The determination indicated that it would "become final unless an appeal is filed by Thursday, November 12, 2020." No appeal was filed by that deadline.
3. On April 2, 2021, respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) issued a notice of nullification that cancelled the October 22, 2020 determination of eligibility. DEED issued a new determination that Mann was eligible for benefits that same day. Six days later, DEED issued an amended determination of eligibility correcting "the effective date of the separation."
4. On April 27, 2021, Northern Pines appealed the amended determination. An evidentiary hearing before a ULJ followed. The hearing focused on whether Mann was discharged based on employment misconduct. Mann participated in the hearing without counsel. The ULJ issued findings of fact and a decision on June 14, 2021. The ULJ determined that Mann was discharged "because of employment misconduct" and was therefore ineligible for benefits. This decision resulted in an initial overpayment-of-benefits determination of $18,843. Mann requested reconsideration on June 30, and the ULJ issued an order affirming the June 14 decision. Mann appeals.
5. This court "may affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge or remand the case for further proceedings," or "reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2020). A petitioner's substantial rights are prejudiced if the action taken is "in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the department." Id. An untimely appeal from an eligibility determination must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Minn.App. 2006).
6. When an applicant applies for benefits, DEED "must determine any issue of ineligibility" and "send to the applicant and any involved employer . . . a document titled a determination of eligibility or a determination of ineligibility, as is appropriate." Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(a) (2020). This determination "is final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or employer within 20 calendar days after sending." Id., subd. 2(f) (2020). DEED "may reconsider a determination of eligibility" on its own prerogative, but only if such determination "has not become final." Id., subd. 4 (2020).
7. Mann argues, for the first time on appeal, that DEED lacked jurisdiction to issue the determinations of eligibility in April 2021 and that the ULJ therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider Northern Pines' appeal of those determinations. Whether DEED acted within its statutory authority consistent with appeal deadlines is reviewed de novo. See Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Minn.App. 2012) (stating an agency's decision "whether to dismiss an appeal as untimely" is to be reviewed de novo); see also In re Murack, 957 N.W.2d 124, 127 (Minn.App. 2021) ("A ULJ's decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely raises a jurisdictional question of law, which we review de novo.").
8. Mann argues that the October 2020 determination of eligibility became final when Northern Pines did not appeal that determination within 20 days. Mann further argues that once the October 2020 determination became final, DEED was deprived of its authority under Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 4, to reconsider that determination. See Rowe v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 704 N.W.2d 191, 194 (Minn.App. 2005) (stating that DEED's "jurisdiction depends entirely on the statute under which it operates," and that "[a]n agency's action taken without statutory authority ordinarily is void").
9. DEED responds that Mann has forfeited his jurisdictional argument because he did not raise it before the ULJ. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating appellate courts generally must consider “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court” (quotation omitted)). But we may consider an argument not raised before an agency decisionmaker in the interests of justice. Greene v. Comm'r of Hum. Servs., 755 N.W.2d 713, 725 n.9 (Minn. 2008) We choose to do so here.
10. DEED argues that Mann's jurisdictional challenge fails on the merits. DEED relies on Stassen for the proposition that "the time limit" for an appeal "is not triggered" if the determination was not properly mailed to an employer. 814 N.W.2d at 30. DEED asserts that the October 2020 determination was mailed to an incorrect address through no fault of Northern Pines. DEED therefore argues that the 20-day appeal deadline never began to run and its actions in April 2021 were made under proper statutory authority.
11. In Stassen, this court concluded that the ULJ did not exceed her jurisdiction by deciding an eligibility determination on the merits even though the employer did not file its appeal within the 20-day statutory deadline. Id. at 32. The employer's appeal was late because DEED mailed the original determination of eligibility to the employer's prior address, even though the employer had provided, and DEED had recorded, the employer's updated mailing address. Id. at 30. In concluding that the appeal was not untimely, this court explained that it had "no difficulty in deciding that the consequence of the mistaken addressing of the letter should not be borne" by an employer "that followed DEED's website directions in updating its address." Id.
12. DEED argues that we should reach the same conclusion here. DEED explains that the mailing mistake in this case occurred because when Mann submitted his online request for benefits, he selected a Northern Pines employer account number that had been inactivated. In support of its position, DEED asks this court to consider extra-record evidence, which includes unemployment questionnaires and Mann's responses, as well as internal agency records pertaining to Northern Pines and its associated employer account numbers and addresses.
At oral argument before this court, DEED emphasized that Mann is not at fault for this mistake. DEED notes that Mann was prompted to select one of two employer account numbers for Northern Pines and that he had no way of knowing which employer account number was correct.
13. This court may consider "new material" if such evidence is "documentary, uncontroverted, and supportive" of the prior ruling. 301 Clifton Place LLC v. 301 Clifton Place Condo. Ass'n, 783 N.W.2d 551, 559 (Minn.App. 2010). Although counsel for DEED thoroughly explained the extra-record documents at oral argument before this court, his explanation goes beyond the information reflected on the face of the documents. Accepting counsel's explanation regarding the facts leading to the incorrect mailing in this case would amount to fact finding, which is not permitted. See Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (stating that "[w]e have criticized before the court of appeals' misapplication of the scope of review when it has usurped the role of the trial court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts."). Moreover, in response to DEED's oral argument, Mann asserted that Northern Pines actually received the notice of the October 2020 determination of eligibility despite the incorrect mailing. Accepting Mann's assertions would similarly require us to engage in improper fact finding.
14. In sum, DEED's extra-record documents alone are neither uncontroverted nor necessarily supportive of a conclusion that the consequence of the incorrect mailing should not be borne by Northern Pines. Thus, the documents do not support affirming the ULJ's determination in the face of Mann's jurisdictional challenge.
15. The record created by the ULJ is not sufficiently developed to enable this court to determine the merits of Mann's jurisdictional argument. Again, Stassen indicates that the statutory appeal deadline is not triggered against an employer if notice of an eligibility determination is mailed to an incorrect address despite the employer's "reasonable effort or diligence" in keeping its address properly updated. 814 N.W.2d at 30. In Stassen, the ULJ was persuaded that the employer reasonably believed that it had taken the steps necessary to update its address with DEED. Id. In this case, the ULJ did not make any findings regarding the circumstances that caused the incorrect mailing of the initial October 2020 determination or whether the fault for that incorrect mailing lies with Northern Pines. Because the lack of findings results from the failure of the parties, or the ULJ, to recognize the jurisdictional issue, a remand is appropriate to develop a factual record sufficient to resolve that issue. See Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2021) ("The unemployment law judge must ensure that all relevant facts are clearly and fully developed.").
16. We therefore remand for a determination of the merits of Mann's jurisdictional challenge. On remand, the ULJ shall reopen the record for the presentation of evidence regarding, and the making of findings necessary to determine, Mann's jurisdictional challenge, consistent with the rule of law stated in Stassen. Specifically, the ULJ shall determine whether the October 2020 eligibility determination was correctly mailed to Northern Pines, thereby commencing the 20-day appeal period, and if not, whether the consequence of the incorrect mailing should be borne by Northern Pines.
17. Because we remand for a determination of the jurisdictional issue, which could be dispositive, we do not reach Mann's argument challenging the ULJ's determination that he was discharged for employment misconduct.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's order is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.