Opinion
C.A. No. N10A-04-006 CLS.
Submitted: April 14, 2011.
Decided: July 21, 2011.
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. DISMISSED.
Hazel Waples, Chester, PA, Appellant.
Katisha D. Fortune, Esq., Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Appellee.
ORDER
Introduction
Before this Court is the Appellant's appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Court has reviewed the Appellant's opening brief and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's letter in opposition, which will be treated as a motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is DISMISSED.
Background
On December 18, 2009, the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance sought to recover from Hazel Waples ("Appellant") overpayment of unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3325. The Claim Deputy found Appellant ineligible for unemployment benefits and required to her to return $1,650.00 for five weeks beginning January 31, 2009 and $75.00 for three weeks beginning April 25, 2009.On December 28, 2009, Appellant appealed the decision of the Claim Deputy and a hearing before the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was scheduled for January 21, 2010. On January 22, 2010, the Appeals Referee affirmed the decision of the Claim Deputy.
On January 29, 2010, Appellant appealed the Appeals Referee ("Referee") to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board"). A hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2010. Appellant failed to appear so the Board dismissed the appeal.
On April 3, 2010, Appellant filed an appeal to this Court requesting: (1) to clear her name, (2) to open a new claim for unemployment, (3) to receive financial assistance so she can start to repay the overpayment, and (4) to state this has been a terrible misunderstanding. By letter dated March 31, 2011, the Board states Appellant is not entitled to a review of its decision because she failed to appear at the March 24, 2010 hearing, thereby failing to exhaust her administrative remedies. The letter will be treated as a motion to dismiss.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72(i); See Griffin v. Daimler Chrysler, 2000 WL 33309877, *3 (Del. Super. Ct.).
Standard of Review
The scope of review of an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board is limited to errors of law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Before a party may appeal to this Court for review, it must exhaust the administrative remedies available.Discussion
This appeal is dismissed because Appellant has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Judicial review of a Board decision is permitted "only after any party claiming to be aggrieved [by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board] has exhausted all administrative remedies as provided in this chapter." An appeal to this Court will be dismissed when the Appellant has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In Bell, the Court dismissed the appeal because the Appellant failed to attend the appeal hearing before the Board, did not notify the Board before or after the hearing with a reason for his absence, and argued the merits of his case rather than claim the Board erred in dismissing his appeal. Similarly, Appellant failed to attend her appeal hearing before the Board on March 24, 2010. While she contends she tried to explain her absence to the Board after her hearing, there is no evidence to support her claim. On appeal, she has not asserted the Board erred as a matter of law in dismissing her appeal, but seeks remedies not available on appeal, such as clearing her name. As a result of failing to exhaust her administrative remedies, this appeal is dismissed.Conclusion
Based on the forgoing, the appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.