Opinion
C.A. No. 07A-02-003 SCD.
Submitted: March 3, 2008.
Decided: March 25, 2008.
Decision upon Appellant's Appeal from the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
OPINION
The matter before this Court is an appeal by Jocelyn Morales ("Appellant") from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board"), in which the Board affirmed the Appeals Referee's dismissal of her claim.
Procedural History and Decision of the Board
The Appellant's last day of employment with Red Oak Health Care Management ("Employer") was June 13, 2006. On June 16, the Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Delaware Department of Labor ("DOL") contending she was wrongfully terminated from employment because of a verbal altercation with a co-worker. On July 6, a DOL Claims Deputy found that the Employer had just cause for terminating her employment and denied her claim for unemployment benefits. The Appellant filed an untimely appeal of the DOL determination. On August 14, the Appeals Referee heard the Appellant's case on the issue of timeliness and determined that the timeliness requirements were waived due to error by the DOL. On September 6, an evidentiary hearing was held before the same Appeals Referee, but the Employer did not appear. Nonetheless, the Referee found that the Appellant was not terminated for just cause and therefore not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
R. at 16.
Id. at 12-14.
Id. at 29-32.
The Employer filed an appeal from the Referee's decision to the Board on September 16. On October 27, the Board remanded the matter to the Referee because the Employer did not attend the September 6 hearing. On November 20, both parties attended the remanded hearing. On November 30, the Referee determined that the Appellant was disqualified from the receipt of benefits. On December 11, the Appellant appealed that determination. Following notice to both parties, the appeal was scheduled to be heard on January 17, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. The Appellant failed to appear at that hearing. The Board dismissed the appeal. Its decision was mailed to both parties on January 19, 2007.
Id. at 37.
Id. at 38-41.
Id. at 56.
Id. at 57.
Id. at 58.
Id.
The Appellant filed a request for rehearing with the Board on January 23. The reason she cited for her absence from the hearing was that she did not receive proper notice. She stated that she appeared at the DOL on January 18, 2007, and was told the hearing was on the 17th. Her request for a rehearing was denied. The Board noted in its decision that there was "no Department error which could have caused the notice to be received untimely." On February 16, 2007, the Appellant filed a timely appeal from the Board's decision.
Id. at 59.
Id. at 60.
Standard of Review
The Board is given much latitude when ruling on an appeal from a dismissal by an Appeals Referee. The decision of whether to reopen and remand a matter dismissed for failing to appear is within the sound discretion of the Board. In the absence of any abuse of discretion, the Court must uphold the Board's decision.
Carter v. Dep't of Labor, 1993 WL 489222, *2 (Del.Super. Nov. 12, 1993).
Id.
Id. (citing Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991)).
Discussion
The record shows that proper and timely notice of the hearing on January 17, 2007, was mailed to the Appellant at her current mailing address, the same address at which she had received prior notices to appear. Appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Her failure to appear at the scheduled hearing is reasonable grounds for the Board to dismiss the case. The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the Appellant's request for rehearing.Furthermore, the Appellant is not entitled to seek judicial review of the merits of her case because she has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her. Delaware Code provides that "judicial review thereof as provided in this subchapter shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted all administrative remedies as provided by this chapter." This Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of a case on appeal when a party has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to appear at a Board hearing.
Griffin v. Daimler Chrysler, 2000 WL 33309877, *1 (Del.Super. Apr. 27, 2001); Harris v. Mountaire Farms of Delaware, 2003 WL 22853425, *2 (Del.Super. Jul. 16, 2003); Jackson v. Murphy Marine Services, Inc., *1 (Del.Super. Apr. 24, 2002).
The decision of the Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.