[Cite as Konieczka v. U.C.R.C., 2011-Ohio-4094.]

 Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 95697 

GARY KONIECZKA 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

vs. 

U.C.R.C., ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Administrative Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-717717 

BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., Celebrezze, J., and Sweeney, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 18, 2011 
 

FOR APPELLANT

Gary Konieczka, Pro Se 

3115 Tuxedo Avenue 

Parma, OH 44134 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND 

FAMILY SERVICES

Michael DeWine 

Ohio Attorney General 

BY: Laurel Blum Mazorow 

Assistant Attorney General 

Health and Human Services Section 

Unemployment Compensation Unit 

State Office Building, 11th Floor 

615 W. Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, OH 44113-1899 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE MACA TRANSPORT, INC. 

Christopher J. Freeman 

P.O. Box 401 

Medina, OH 44258-0401 
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar 

pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1,1 the record from the Cuyahoga County 

Court of Common Pleas, and the briefs and oral arguments of counsel. 

{¶ 2} Claimant-appellant, Gary Konieczka, filed a claim for 

unemployment compensation benefits after he quit his job with Maca 

Transport, Inc., but the claim was disallowed because he failed to provide 

specific facts regarding his reasons for quitting. Konieczka appealed from 

that determination, but a hearing officer found the appeal was untimely filed. 

 The review commission upheld that finding. Konieczka appealed to the 

court of common pleas, but the court found that the review commission’s 

decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, or unsupported by the manifest 

weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 3} Konieczka appears pro se, and although his brief does not set 

forth an assignment of error, it appears that he is claiming that the director 

should not have issued a decision without first considering Konieczka’s 

reasons for quitting. 

 1

App.R. 11.1(E) states: “Determination and judgment on appeal. It shall be sufficient 

compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court’s decision as to each error 

to be in brief and conclusionary form.” See, also, Form 3, Appendix of Forms to the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. 
{¶ 4} The review commission did not consider whether Konieczka quit 

his job with just cause because it found that he failed to file a timely appeal 

from the director’s ruling. R.C. 4141.281(A) states that an appeal from a 

determination of benefit rights or a claim for benefits determination must be 

made within 21 calendar days of the determination. In the absence of a 

timely appeal made in accordance with R.C. 4141.281(A), the review 

commission is without jurisdiction to conduct further review of the director’s 

determination. Clemons v. Ohio State Dept. of Job & Family Serv., 10th 

Dist. No. 03AP-976, 2004-Ohio-6251, at ¶3; Fisher v. Yellow Freight Sys. Inc., 

5th Dist. No. 2003CA00391, 2004-Ohio-5193, at ¶11. 

{¶ 5} The director’s decision disallowing benefits was dated April 17, 

2009. It stated that Konieczka had 21 days’ appeal rights and that: “TO 

BE TIMELY, YOUR APPEAL MUST BE RECEIVED/POSTMARKED 

NO LATER THAN 05/08/2009.” (Emphasis sic.) Konieczka did not file his 

notice of appeal until June 5, 2009. 

{¶ 6} During a hearing held before the review commission, Konieczka 

admitted that he had requested to be notified of the director’s decision online 

and that he did, in fact, receive notice of the April 17, 2009 decision by email 

before the appeal deadline. He did not open the email, however, because he 

“didn’t know how to navigate on the computer.” 
{¶ 7} A reviewing court may reverse the review commission’s 

determination only if it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 114 

Ohio St.3d 89, 2007-Ohio-2941, 868 N.E.2d 669, ¶10, citing Tzangas, Plakas 

& Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 697, 

1995-Ohio-206, 653 N.E.2d 1207. The court did not act unreasonably by 

affirming the review commission’s finding that Konieczka did not timely 

appeal from the director’s determination. The undisputed evidence shows 

that Konieczka received notice of the director’s decision disallowing his 

application for benefits but failed to file an appeal from that decision in a 

timely manner. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga 

County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

___________________________________________ 

MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR