From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nardi v. Lewis

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Nov 23, 1999
CA NO. 99A-07-003-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 1999)

Opinion

CA NO. 99A-07-003-NAB.

Submitted: November 15, 1999.

Decided: November 23, 1999.

Employer's Motion to Affirm a Decision of the UIAB. Denied.

Deanna M. Nardi, 6 Butternut Court, Wilmington, Delaware 19810, Pro Se, Claimant.

Douglas A. Shachtman, Esquire, Douglas A. Shachtman Associates, Wilmington, Delaware, for Employer.

James J. Hanley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, for the Board.


ORDER


This 23rd day of November 1999, it appears and the Court concludes as follows:

1. On July 15, 1999, Claimant Deanna Nardi filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) denying her unemployment benefits. In response to her opening brief, the Department of Labor filed its answering brief, and Employer Jack Lewis filed a motion to affirm.

The Department of Labor is a party to any judicial action involving a decision of the Board. 19 Del. C. § 3322 (b).

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72.1(b).

2. The facts pertinent to this stage of the proceedings are as follows. Prior to the Board hearing, Claimant wrote a letter to the Board stating that she would not attend the hearing because she was "not eligible for time off with pay" at her new job. Following the Board's denial of her petition for benefits, Claimant requested a rehearing so she could "present documents and information to the Board." The Board denied this request because Claimant had had an opportunity to present her case to the Board but had explicitly waived this right in her letter.

3. On appeal to this Court, Claimant attempts to make the case she could have made below. She challenges the Board's authority to deny her request for a rehearing, and she attempts to reargue the merits of her case. She also challenges the veracity and motives of both Employer and the Board. Employer asserts that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a rehearing and that there is substantial evidence on the record to support the Board's findings.

4. A motion to affirm is to be granted only where "it is manifest on the face of appellant's brief that the appeal is without merit." While such an argument could be made in this case, the Court finds that the best course of action is to deny Employer's motion to affirm and proceed with briefing. The Court notes that the issue on appeal to this Court is whether the Board abused its discretion in denying Claimant's request for a so-called "rebuttal hearing."

Id.

Connors v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95A-05-007, Lee, J. (May 22, 1996) (Letter Op.).

5. The Court further points out that its role on appeal of an administrative decision is a very limited one, and that evidence not part of the certified record of the proceedings may not be considered on appeal. That is, where a claimant presents evidence on appeal that was not submitted to the Board during the fact-finding process (as Claimant has done in the case at bar), this Court may not consider it. While the Court permits a certain leeway to pro se litigants, the statutory rules governing appeals from administrative boards must be followed.

See 19 Del. C. § 3323 (a), which provides in part as follows: "In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the [Superiori Court shall be confined to questions of law."

See, e.g., Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Supr., 352 A.2d 761 (1976).

Vick v. Haller, Del. Supr., No. 149, 1986, Christie, C.J. (March 2, 1987).

6. Employer's answering brief is due 20 days from the date of this Order. If Claimant chooses to file a reply brief, she shall confine her arguments to the facts of record and may include her responses to both defendants in one brief. Her reply brief is due 10 days from the date Employer's answering brief is received.

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72.1(b).

In sum, Employer's motion to affirm is denied, and briefing shall resume as set forth above.

It Is So ORDERED .


Summaries of

Nardi v. Lewis

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County
Nov 23, 1999
CA NO. 99A-07-003-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 1999)
Case details for

Nardi v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:Deanna M. NARDI, Claimant, v. Jack LEWIS and the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE…

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Nov 23, 1999

Citations

CA NO. 99A-07-003-NAB (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 1999)