Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-01-001 RBY.
Submitted: December 8, 2006.
Decided: March 21, 2007.
Upon an Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Affirmed.
Richard L. Snyder, pro se.
Wyoming Concrete, pro se.
Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Wilmington, Delaware.
ORDER
Appellant Richard L. Snyder ("Claimant") filed an appeal from the December 29, 2005 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB" or "Board"). Appellee Wyoming Concrete did not respond to Mr. Snyder's present appeal.
Procedural History and Decision of the UIAB
Mr. Snyder sought payment of unemployment benefits after he separated from his employment with Wyoming Concrete. The Claims Deputy determined that the Claimant voluntarily quit his job without good cause and was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. Specifically, the Claims Deputy decided that the Claimant left his employment for personal reasons. The Claims Deputy found that the vehicle which the claimant drove for the employer did break down, but the employer found other loads for the Claimant to take. Further, the Deputy found that the Claimant advised Wyoming Concrete that he was going to quit his job because he had to care for his ill mother.
Mr. Snyder timely appealed the decision of the Claims Deputy to the Appeals Referee. The Claimant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing before the Appeals Referee. The Appeals Referee ordered the case dismissed because the claimant did not appear to prosecute the appeal at the scheduled time. The Appeal Referee's decision was mailed to the Claimant with notice that July 22, 2005 was the final day to file an appeal of the Referee's decision.
The Claimant filed an untimely appeal of the Appeal Referee's decision to the UIAB on August 3, 2005. The Board pointed out that the Claimant failed to offer any reasons concerning the untimeliness of the appeal. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(c) , the Board determined that it was without jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's appeal. However, the Board further explained that in cases of severe circumstances, the Board could exercise its discretion under § 3320 to accept the appeal sua sponte. In declining to accept the late appeal, the Board found that the Referee's decision was sent to the record address of the Claimant and expressly stated that an appeal was required to be filed by July 22, 2005. Further, there was no evidence of any errors on the part of the Department of Unemployment Insurance which would have delayed the Claimant's appeal. The UIAB's decision provided notice to Mr. Snyder that an appeal had to be taken by October 23, 2005 concerning the Board's decision.
19 Del. C. § 3318(c)provides that a referee's decision "shall be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal [to the Board] is initiated pursuant to § 3320 of this Title."
On October 22, 2005, the Claimant sent a copy of his original appeal to the Board along with a long letter explaining his displeasure with the Board's decision. The Board considered the letter to be a request for a rehearing on the matter. The Board considered the request at its November 23, 2005 meeting and denied Mr. Snyder's Motion. The Claimant argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing before the Appeals Referee, which caused him to miss the hearing. The Board found the Claimant's argument unpersuasive. Mr. Snyder indicated that there may have been a problem with the U.S. Postal Service worker on his route. However, the Board found that all mail properly sent is deemed delivered. Therefore, the UIAB affirmed its earlier decision denying to hear Mr. Snyder's untimely appeal.
Mr. Snyder timely appealed the UIAB's decision to this Court. The Appellant proffers the same arguments as he did in the prior proceedings, an d Mr. Snyder claims that he should have been awarded unemployment benefits.
Standard of Review
The review of an Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision is limited to determining whether the Board's decision is free from legal error and whether substantial evidence supports the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Substantial evidence equates to "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to supp ort a conclusion." This Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. Errors of law are reviewed de novo. Absent error of law, the standard of review for a Board's decision is abuse of discretion. The Board has abused its discretion only when its decision has "exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances."
Fed. Street Fin. Serv. v. Davies, 2000 WL 1211514, *2 (Del.Super.).
Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981) ( quoting Consolo v. Federal Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
Collins v. Giant Food, Inc., 1999 Del. Super. LEXIS 590 ( quoting Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965)).
Digiacomo v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 507 A.2d 542, 546 (Del. 1986).
Willis v. Plastic Materials, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 9 at *2-3.
Discussion
This Court's review is limited to examining the underlying record to determine whether the Board abused its discretion in denying to hear the Appellant's untimely appeal. The Board has discretion to hear an untimely appeal sua sponte pursuant to § 3320. The UIAB's discretion to assume jurisdiction over an untimely appeal is warranted if the lateness of the filing was traced back to an error of the UIAB, or if the appellant proffers an excuse which could warrant the Board's sua sponte exercise of jurisdiction. The Board exercised its discretion in denying to hear Mr. Snyder's late appeal sua sponte finding that there was no error by the Department in contributing to the lateness of the Claimant's appeal, and that Mr. Snyder's argument concerning error by the U.S. Postal Service did not warrant the Board's sua sponte exercise of jurisdiction.Delaware law presumes that a mailing with the proper address and postage has been received by the intended claimant. When there has been no showing that an error by the UIAB contributed to the lateness of the claimant's appeal, the mere assertion that one did not receive the [appealable] decision is not a sufficient reason for the UIAB to assert jurisdiction of an untimely appeal.
Id.
Id.
The Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied to hear the Appellant's untimely appeal from the decision of the Appeals Referee. The record does not reflect that there were any errors made by the UIAB which would have contributed to the lateness of the Claimant's appeal. Further, the Appellant fails to proffer an excuse which would have warranted the Board to hear the late appeal sua sponte. Mr. Snyder reiterates his argument that an error by the United States Postal Service caused him to miss the hearing before the Appeals Referee, because the error caused him to lack notice. This is not a sufficient reason to find that the UIAB abused its discretion in denying to hear the Claimant's untimely appeal. The Board's decision did not exceed the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances.
Mr. Snyder states "I phoned Helen at the Appeal Board several times concerning my claim at (phone number) in which she admitted having lost my files between 2 computers." The Appellant proffers nothing further concerning this statement. The Court is unable to address the claim due to its lack of specificity.
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.