Case Title: Han v. UIAB

Citation: 

Docket Number: 43, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVE HAN, 
 
 
Appellant Below, 
 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, 
APPEAL BOARD 
 
 
Appellee Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 43, 2014 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§ 
§  C.A. No. N13A-05-003 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 18, 2014 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 11, 2014 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the record below,1 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) The appellant, Steve Han, appeals from the Superior Court’s January 
27, 2014 order affirming the April 26, 2013 decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”).  We find no merit to the appeal and we affirm. 
(2) The record reflects that, on March 8, 2013, a Department of Labor 
notice finding Han disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits was mailed 
                                                 
1 In a letter dated March 13, 2014, the appellee informed the Court that it did not intend to file an 
answering brief and would rest upon the record below.   
2 
 
to Han.  The notice stated that the determination of the Claims Deputy would 
become final on March 18, 2013 unless Han filed a written appeal by that date.  
Han filed an appeal on March 20, 2013.  On March 25, 2013, it was determined 
that the March 8, 2013 decision was final and binding because Han had failed to 
file a timely appeal.   
(3) On April 12, 2013, the Appeals Referee held a telephonic hearing on 
the timeliness of Han’s appeal.  At the hearing, a Department of Labor 
representative testified that the notice of disqualification was mailed on March 8, 
2013 to the address that Han verified as accurate on the record.  The Department of 
Labor representative also testified that to the best of her knowledge the U.S. Postal 
Service did not return the March 8, 2013 notice as undeliverable.  Han testified that 
when he applied for unemployment benefits on February 25, 2013, a Department 
of Labor employee told him that he would be notified of a decision in two or three 
weeks.  When Han did not hear anything, he returned to the Department of Labor 
on March 20, 2013.  At that time, the Department of Labor told Han that a decision 
had been mailed and that he had missed the deadline to file a timely appeal. 
(4) On April 12, 2013, the Appeals Referee mailed her decision, which 
concluded that Han’s appeal of the March 8, 2013 notice was untimely and that 
there was no evidence to suggest Han’s late filing was the result of any mistakes or 
errors by the Department of Labor in mailing the March 8, 2013 notice.  Because 
3 
 
the appeal was untimely, the Appeals Referee lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits 
of Han’s appeal from the Claims Deputy’s determination. 
(5) On April 18, 2013, Han timely appealed from the Appeals Referee’s 
decision to the UIAB.  The UIAB held a review hearing on April 24, 2013.  On 
April 26, 2013, the UIAB mailed its decision affirming the Appeals Referee’s 
decision and denying the application for further review.  The UIAB found no 
evidence of error by the Department of Labor that prevented Han from filing a 
timely appeal.   
(6) On May 2, 2013, Han timely appealed from the UIAB’s decision to the 
Superior Court.  Han argued that he never received the March 8, 2013 notice, he 
was told it would be two to three weeks until the Department of Labor made a 
decision, and that a false accusation led to the termination of his employment.  The 
UIAB responded that substantial evidence supported its conclusion that Han’s 
appeal was untimely.   
(7) In an order dated January 27, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the 
UIAB’s decision.  The Superior Court determined that other than Han’s contention 
that he did not receive the March 8, 2013 notice, there was no evidence in the 
record showing that an error or mistake by the Department of Labor caused Han to 
file an untimely appeal.  
4 
 
(8) On January 31, 2014, Han timely appealed from the Superior Court’s 
order to this Court.  Han argues that (i) sometimes mail is misdelivered, (ii) he 
never received the March 8, 2013 notice, (iii) he was told it would be two to three 
weeks until the Department of Labor made a decision, and (iv) he was unjustly 
terminated.  The UIAB rested on the record below. 
(9) We review a Superior Court decision that, in turn, has reviewed an 
administrative agency’s ruling, by examining directly the decision of the agency.2  
Our review of a UIAB decision is limited to a determination of whether there is 
substantial evidence in the record to support the UIAB’s findings and whether such 
findings are free from legal error.3  Absent abuse of discretion, this Court must 
uphold a decision of the UIAB.4   
(10) The statutory provision governing unemployment insurance appeals 
requires a claimant to file his appeal within ten calendar days after the Claims 
Deputy’s determination is mailed to the claimant’s last known address.5  If a timely 
appeal is not filed, the Claims Deputy’s decision is deemed final.6  Although the 
                                                 
2 Pub. Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale, 735 A.2d 378, 380 (Del. 1999). 
3 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. of the Dep't of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del.1975); 
see 19 Del. C. § 3323(a). 
4 Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991). 
5 19 Del. C. § 3318(b). 
6 Id. 
5 
 
UIAB has discretion to review, sua sponte, a decision where no timely appeal has 
been filed,7 such discretion is exercised rarely and only in cases where there has 
been administrative error by the Department of Labor that has deprived the 
claimant of the ability to file a timely appeal or where the interests of justice would 
be served.8   
(11) We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and conclude that 
the UIAB’s decision is supported by the evidence and is free from legal error and 
abuse of discretion.  The interests of justice did not require the UIAB to review the 
Claims Deputy’s decision.  Accordingly, we conclude the Superior Court’s January 
27, 2014 order must be affirmed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 19 Del. C. § 3320; Funk, 591 A.2d at 225-26. 
8 Funk, 591 A.2d at 225.