IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

CRAIG WILLIAMS

, )

)

Appellant, ) C.A. No. N15A

- 01

- 005 RRC

v. )

)

DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT )

INSURANCE , and )

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )

APPEAL S BOARD

, )

)

Appellee

. )

Submitted : October 7 , 2015

Decided: October 21

, 2015

On Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal s Board.



### AFFIRMED.

ORDER

Craig Williams

, Wilmington

, Delaware, pro se, Appellant

.

Paige J. Schmittinger

, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of

Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board.

COOCH, R.J.

This 21st day of October

, 2015 , on appeal of a decision from the

Unemployment Insurance Appeal s Board, it appears to the Court that:

1. This appeal arises out of two separate determinations issued on March

6, 2014, by a Departmen t of Labor (“Department”) Claims Deputy.

The first establish ed an overpayment to Appellant Craig Williams2 (“Williams”) on Ju ne 23, 2011

, in the amount of $17.00

. 1 The second

determination established overpayments for the period of July 7,

2012

, through September 29, 2012, in the amount of $490.00

. 2

Williams had 10 days to appeal t hose determinations

. Williams

missed the 10

- day deadline and did not file an appeal until August 20,

2014 , five mont hs late

.

2. A h earing on the issue of timeliness was scheduled before a

Departme nt Appeals Referee (“Referee”) for September 8

, 2014. 3

Williams failed to appear at the hearing and his appeal was

dismissed. 4 Williams filed an appeal of the dismissal within the 10

- day time frame to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

(“Board”) . The Board remanded the matter to the Referee to again

hold a hearing on the issue of timeliness

. 5 A seco nd hearing was

scheduled for October 28, 2014. 6 This hearing was postponed at

Williams’ request, and rescheduled for November 18, 2014. 7 Williams

again failed to appea r for a second time and the Referee dismissed the

appeal

. 8 Williams appealed the Referee’s decision to the B oard again.

However, this time the Board adopted the November dismissal as its

own

. 9 Williams now appeals the Board’s decision to this Court.

3. Williams contends that the Department was “negligent [] for failure

[si c] to take proper care of the handling of determination [sic] of [his]

monetary unemployment benefits.” 10 Williams argues that t he

amounts that the Department determined were overpaid to him were

inaccurate. 11 Finally, he asserts that his repeated failures to appear

should be excused

, because he was seeking counsel to represent him

in this matter. 12

1 R. at 1.

2 Id

. at 4.

3 Id

. at 14

- 15.

4 Id

. at 21, 23.

5 R. at 43

- 44.

6 Id

. at 45

- 46.

7 Id. at 48

- 52.

8 Id. at 53, 55.

9 R. at 60.

10 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 1, D.I. 8.

11 Id. at 2.

12 Id.3 4. The Board responds that this Court is not to consider the “underlying

merits of what triggered the overpayment determination, ” as Williams

arg ues in his Brief 13 Instead, the Board claims that the proper issue to

consider is “the dismissal of [] Williams’ appeal of the Claims

Deputy’s determination.” 14

5. T his Court’s review on a Board decision is limited to whether the

Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and free

from legal error. 15 Substantial evidence requires “such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” 16 It is within the province of the Board, not this Court,

to we igh evidence or make determinations based on credibility or

facts. 17 Reversal based on a n abuse of discretion will be granted only

if “the Board acts ‘ a rbitrarily or capriciously ’ or ‘ exceeds the bounds

of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored recognized

rules of law or practice so as to produce injustic e. ’ ” 18

6. After a review of the record, t his Court finds no legal error or abuse of

discretion on the part of the Board

. Williams failed to avail himself of

two opportunities to be hea r d by a Department Referee on the issue of

timeliness

. Wi lliams not only failed to appear at the first hearing, but

the Referee allowed him to extend the date of the second hearing,

which Williams subsequently missed. Therefore, t he Board did not

abuse its discretion, nor did it act in an arbitrary or capricious manner

in adopting the Referee’s November dismissal

. Accordingly, this

Court finds that substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s

decision.

13 Appellee’s Answering Br. at 1, D.I. 9.

14 Id.

15 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin , 431 A.2d 1265, 1266 (Del

. 1981).

16 Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc ., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994)

(citing Olney v. Cooch , 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981).

17 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp. , 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del

. 1965).

18 Straley v. Advance d Staffing, Inc. , 2009 WL 1228572, at * 2 (Del. Super. Apr. 30,

2009) (citing Kreshtool v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 310 A.2d 649, 652 (Del. Super.

1973) ; Nardi v. Lewis, 2000 WL 303147, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2000) ).4 Therefore, the Board’s decision is AFFIRME D.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________ Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

o c: Prothonotary

cc: Unemployment In surance Appeal Board