Opinion
Case No. 20040084-CA.
Filed June 4, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Charles Paxton, Kearns, Petitioner Pro Se.
Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondent.
Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Charles Paxton seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board (Board) concluding his appeal of a decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was untimely filed without good cause.
The ALJ's decision was both issued and mailed to Paxton on October 22, 2003. It contained a "notice of appeal rights" advising Paxton the decision would "become final unless, within thirty days from October 22, 2003, further written appeal is made to the Workforce Appeals Board." Paxton filed his appeal on November 24, 2003, three days beyond the thirty-day limit. The Board allowed Paxton to explain the reasons for the delay. In response, Paxton conceded he received the decision ten days before filing his appeal and stated that the appeal was untimely filed because he was seeking free legal advice and talking to the media about his case. The Board concluded Paxton was not prevented from filing a timely appeal and had not shown good cause.
Utah Administrative Code R994-406-308 (2003) governs the determination of good cause for late filing of an agency appeal. Good cause is limited to circumstances where (1) the decision was not received until after expiration of the appeal time and an appellant filed the appeal within ten days of actual receipt; (2) the delay was due to circumstances beyond an appellant's control; or (3) the appellant delayed filing for reasons that were compelling and reasonable. See Utah Admin. Code R994-406-308(1) (2003). We must determine whether the Board's conclusion that Paxton did not show good cause for untimely filing of the appeal is reasonable and rational. See Johnson v. Department of Employment Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct.App. 1989).
Time limits for appeals of decisions within the Department of Workforce Services are jurisdictional. See Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2000 UT App 223, ¶ 12, 8 P.3d 1033 (holding that without showing of good cause for late filing of appeal from departmental decision, ALJ lacked jurisdiction to consider it). First, Paxton received the ALJ's decision within the appeal period. Second, it was not beyond his control to timely file his appeal. Finally, his reasons for the delay were not compelling and reasonable. Paxton contends for the first time before this court that employees of the Department misinformed him about the appeal time. We will not consider the argument. See Brown Root Indus. v. Industrial Comm'n, 947 P.2d 671, 677 (Utah 1997) ("We have consistently held that issues not raised in proceedings before administrative agencies are not subject to judicial review except in exceptional circumstances.")
Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decisions that the appeal was untimely filed without good cause and that the Board therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.