I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CC - 0 1 5 8 4 - CO A E D D IE J. D A V IS AP P EL LA NT
v. M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF EM PLOYM ENT S ECURI TY APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 06/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J . HOW ARD CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: EDD I E J . DA VI S ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: ALB ERT BO ZEM AN W HI TE L E ANNE F RA NKL I N B RA DY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES T R IA L C O U R T D IS P O S IT IO N : A F F IR M E D B O A R D O F R E V IE W ’S DI S M I S S AL OF UNT I M E L Y AP P E AL D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 16/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. I n hi s appea l of the deni al of

benef i t s f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm ent of E m pl oym entSecur i ty ( M D E S) , E ddi e J . D avi s f ocus es onl y on w hy he thi nks the dec i s i on b y the a d m inistrati v e law jud g e (A L J) w as w ron g . B u t th e m erit s o f th e A L J’s d ec isi o n are
s i m pl y notbef

or e us . T he A L J’ s decis i on beca m e f i nal and bi ndi ng on M D E S’ s B oar d of R evi ew w hen D avi s f

ai l ed t o appea l w i thi n f

ourt een da ys . B ecaus e ther e i s nothi ng i n the
r e c o r d t o s h o w “ g o o d c a u s e ” f o rwh y Da v i s ’ s a p p e a l wa s l a t e , we a f f i rm. P roce dural H i s t ory

### 2

¶2. D avi s appl i ed f

or unempl oym ent benef i t s af t er bei ng f

i r ed f r om the s al es departm ent of C ol um bus N i s s an, I nc. M D E S i ni t i al l y deni e d b e ne f i t s be c aus e D avi s had bee n t erm i nat ed f oract i ng i nappr opr i at el y duri ng a sal es - t eam m eet i ng. W i thi n f ourt een da ys of

bei ng m ai l ed th is in itia l d e c is io n , D a v is re q u e s te d a h e a ri n g . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 517 ( R ev. 2 0 1 1 ). ¶3
. O n M ay 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 , the A L J co n d u cted a tel ep h o n ic h ea ri n g w ith D av is an d D av is’ s f orm ergen er al m anage r . D ur i ng thi s hear i ng, the A L J conf i rm ed notonce, buttw i ce, that D avi s ’ s m ai l i ng addr es s w as corr ect . A tthe end of the hear i ng, the A L J c oncl uded D avi s had i n f actbeen f

i r ed f orm i s conductconnec t ed t o hi s w ork, w hi ch di s qu al i fi ed hi m f r om
re c e iv in g u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fi ts . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -5-5 1 3 (1)(b ) (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ). ¶4. T he very nextday, M ay 22, 2013, the A L J m ai l ed herdeci s i on t o D avi s . T he deci s i on expr es s l y s t at ed thatthe “de ci s i on w i l l become f i nal on 06/ 05/ 13, w hi ch i s f ourt een ( 14) cal end ardays f

r om the dat e thi s deci s i on w as m ai l ed, unl es s you f i l e an appeal w i th the B o a rd o f R e v iew a n d /o r re q u e st a h e a rin g o f th e ca se b y 0 6 /0 5 /1 3 .” W h ile D a v is d ida p p e a l, he w ai t ed t oo l at e. H e f i l ed hi s appeal J une 6, 2013— one day af terthe A L J ’ s deci s i on had b e c o m e fi n a l. T h u s , th e B o a rd d is m is s e d D a v is ’s a p p e a l a s u n tim e ly
. ¶ 5 . D a v is a p p e a le d to th e c ir c u it c o u rt. H e b e g a n h is b rie f b y c laim in g th e re a so n h is appea l t o the B oar d of

Revi ew w as l at e w as thathe ha d ne verr ece i ved the A L J ’ s deci s i on. T h e c ir c u it c o u rta ff

irm e d th e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n . ¶6. D avi s f

urther appea l ed t o thi s court . I n hi s br i ef s ubm i tt ed t o thi s court , he does not
m ent i on the f

acthi s appea l t o the B oar d of R evi ew w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y. N ordoes he try to e x p la in w h y h is ta rd in e s s s h o u ld b e e x c u s e d
.

### 3 D i s cus s i on ¶7. T hough D avi s ’ s appea l i gnor es the f act the A L J ’ s deci s i on beca m e f i nal and bi ndi ng
o n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 1 3 , w e c an n o t. T h e p roc ed u res fo r un em p loy m en t- b en efit s cas es li k e D av is’ s
ar e governed by s t atut e. W hi l e M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 71- 5- 519 ( R ev. 2011) al l ow s a party t o appea l a dec i s i on by the A L J t o the B oar d of R evi ew , the appeal m us tbe
m ade w i thi n f

ourt een days
. A nd “ [ u] nl es s the not i f i cat i on of

the deci s i on i s made by m eans
o th e r th a n m a ili n g , the fo u rte e n -d a y tim e p e rio d to a p p e a l to th e B o a rdo f R e v iew b e g in s to
run on the dat e thatnot i ce i s m ai l ed t o the part i es . ” Mis s . E m p’ tSec. C om m ’ n v. Mar i on C n ty. Sh erif

f’s D ep ’t , 865 So. 2d 1153, 1156 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng W i lkerson v. Miss. E m p ’t Sec . C o m m ’n , 630 So. 2d 1000, 1002 ( M i s s . 1994) )
. H er e, the A L J gave D avi s not i ce by m ai l on M ay 22, 2013, us i ng the addr es s D avi s had j us tc onf i rm ed the day bef

or e dur i ng the t el ephoni c hea r i ng. So hi s f ourt een- day per i od t o appea l began runni ng on M ay 22, 2013. B ecaus e he di d notap peal the A L J ’ s deci s i on w i thi n thos e f ourt een da ys , “thatdeci s i on [ beca m e] bi ndi ng on the B oar d of R evi ew . ” I

d. ¶8. W hi l e D avi s ’ s appeal w as onl y one day l at e, the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourthas m ade
c le a r th a t th is fo u rt e e n -d a y p e ri o d m u s t b e s tr ic tly c o n s tru e d
. I d. ( ci t i ng W

i lker s on , 630 So. 2d at1002)
. I n f

act , i n W i lker s on , the s upr eme courtchas t i s ed the M D E S f oracc ept i ng an appea l f i l ed o n e da

y la te , b ec au se th e a g en cy h ad n o au tho ri ty to g o o u tside the s tatu te’s
c o n fi n e s a n d a llo w p a rt ie s a n e x tr a th re e d a y s to a p p e a l. W i lker s on , 630 So. 2d at1001- 02. ¶9. T he onl y w ay t o getar ound thi s har d deadl i ne i s t o show “‘ good caus e’
. . . thatthe
m a ili n g to th e las t k n o w n a d d re ss w a s n o t re a so n a b ly c a lcu late d , u n d e r all circ u m sta n c e s, to appr i s e the party of

the dec i s i on. ” Ma rion C n ty. Sh erif f’s D ep ’t , 865 So. 2d at1157 ( ¶10)

### 4

( ci t at i ons om i tt ed)
. Butmer el y de nyi ng not i ce w as r ece i ved— w hi ch i s al l D avi s di d— i s not
e n o u g h to e s ta b lis h g o o d c a u s e . Id
. I ns t ead, D avi s needed t o putforth “suf f i ci entevi dence t o s how that[ he] f

ai l ed t o r ece i ve the mai l i ng due t o del ays i n the m ai l or be caus e of an ac t be yo nd[ hi s ] c ontr ol
. ” I d. B u t D a v is o ffe re d n o su c h e v id e n c e . T h u s, w e fin d th e c irc u it
courtpr oper l y af

f i rm ed the B oar d of R eview ’s deci s i on thatD avi s ’ s appea l w as unt i m el y. ¶ 1 0
. F o rth e s a me r e a s o n , we t o o a f f i rm. ¶ 1 1
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E L O W N D E S C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS A F F I R M E D . LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ. , B A R N ES, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, CARL TON, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.