Opinion
C.A. No. 07A-11-002 WCC.
Submitted: September 2, 2008.
Decided: December 23, 2008.
Appeal from Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.
Marisol Ocasio, Wilmington, DE Pro Se Appellant.
Mary Page Bailey, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
Before this Court is Marisol Ocasio's (the "Appellant") appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's (the "Board") decision, which found Appellant liable for overpaid unemployment benefits. Upon review of the record in this matter, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that an overpayment occurred but modifies the amount the Appellant is required to repay.
Facts
The Appellant filed an unemployment claim effective August 20, 2006 and received benefit checks from that time until the week ending Septem ber 23, 2 006. On September 7, 2006, the Appellant interviewed for a tutoring position at Maple Lane Elementary School in the Brandywine School District, and on September 13, 2006, she received a letter offering her a position to begin working on September 18, 2006. The Department of Labor mailed to the Appellant a Notice of Determination on June 22, 2007 advising her that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the weeks ending September 16, 2006 and September 23, 2006. The Appellant did not appeal this determination. On August 28, 2007, the Department of Labor again mailed to the Appellant a second Notice of Determination advising her that she had been overpaid unemployment benefits in the amount of $360. The Appellant testified that she applied for benefits for the week ending September 16, 2006 but that she did not recall applying for benefits for the week ending September 23, 2006. She further testified that she did not recall receiving benefit checks for either of those weeks.
The Division of Unemployment Insurance (the "DUI") determined that the Appellant was not eligible for benefits for the two weeks in question because she had reasonable assurance of employment as of September 13, 2006. The Appellant subsequently appealed that decision to the Appeals Referee who affirmed the DUI's decision. The Appellant then appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Referee's decision. The Appellant has now filed this appeal, contesting the Board's decision. The Board has not filed a brief in this matter, therefore, the following represents the Court's decision based on the papers currently before it.
Standard of Review
This Court's role in reviewing an appeal from an administrative agency is limited. The Court will only evaluate the record, in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, to determine if substantial evidence existed to reasonably support the conclusion and to ensure that it is free from legal error. "Substantial evidence" is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Thus, the Court does not address issues of credibility nor does it independently weigh the evidence presented to the Board. If the record supports the Board's findings, the Court must accept those findings even if the Court might have reached a different conclusion on the facts presented.
Zicarelli v. Boscov's Dep't Store, LLC, 2008 WL 3486207, at *2 (Del.Super. June 5, 2008).
Id.
Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n v. Newsome, 690 A.2d 906, 910 (Del. 1996) (citing Oceanport Ind., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994)).
Michael A. Sinclair, Inc. v. Riley, 2004 WL 1731140, at *2 (Del.Super. July 30, 2004) (citing Unemploy. Ins. App. Bd. v. Div. of Unemploy. Ins., 803 A.2d 937 (Del. 2002)).
Anderson v. Comfort Suites, 2004 WL 304359, at * 2 (Del.Super. Feb. 12, 2004) (explaining that "[a]bsent an abuse of discretion, this Court must uphold the Board's decision.") (citing Oceanport Ind., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994)).
Discussion
The question before the Court is whether the Board had substantial evidence to find the Appellant liable for the overpaid unemployment benefits. The Court finds that the Board had substantial evidence to reach this conclusion.The Appellant first contends that she did not receive the first Notice of Determination dated June 22, 2006 and that as a result, she did not file an appeal. However, under 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), an initial determination that an individual is no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefits becomes final if it is not appealed within ten days of the mailing of the initial Notice of Determination. The Board does retain the power to act after the expiration of the ten-day period, but this authority may only be invoked "where there has been some administrative error on the part of the Department of Labor which deprived the claimant of the opportunity to file a timely appeal, or in those cases where the interest of justice would not be served by inaction." Otherwise, the disqualification becomes final after those ten days and 19 Del. C. § 3318(b) bars further appeal. There is no evidence to suggest an administrative error by the Department of Labor nor does the Court find the Board erred in not accepting the Appellant's appeal in the interest of justice.
Tr. of Hr'g before the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bd., Sept. 20, 2007, at 9.
19 Del. C. § 3318(b) (2008).
Anderson, 2004 WL 304359, at * 3 (quoting Funk v. UIAB, 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991)).
Id.
The Appellant also argues that she does not recall filing for unemployment benefits for the week ending September 23, nor does she recall receiving benefit checks for either of the weeks ending September 16 or 23. However, she did not submit any evidence supporting this contention. Moreover, the Appellant signed a form entitled "Claimant Notice of Receipt of Rights and Responsibilities" indicating that she understood she would be required to repay the benefits paid to her in the event that the Referee or the Board found her to be ineligible to receive benefits.
Tr. of Bd.'s Hr'g. at 10-11.
Considering all of the evidence presented, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the assertion by the Department of Labor that the Appellant received benefits which she was not entitled to for the week ending on September 23, 2006. However, there appears to be no dispute that the Appellant did not begin work until September 18, 2006. While the offer of employment occurred five days earlier, she remained unemployed in that she was not receiving a salary or wages until September 18, 2006. Therefore, the Department failed to present any evidence to support the denial of unemployment for the week ending on September 16, 2006. So while the Board's decision is affirmed, the Court finds the overpayment supported by the evidence is only $180.00, not the $360 claimed by the Department.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED consistent with the above ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED