Sixth Division March 19, 2010 No. 1-08-2875 MARIO K. THOMPSON, Plaintiff -Appella nt,

v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURI TY; DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPL OYMENT SECURITY; THE BOARD OF REVI EW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; and U-HAUL COMPANY OF I LL INOI S, INC., Defend ants-App ellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook Cou

nty

08 L 50700

Honorable Susan J. McDunn, Judge Presiding

JUSTICE McBRI DE delive

red the o pinion of t

he court : Plaintiff Mario Thompson, pro se , appeals from an order of the circuit cour t of Cook County confirming the r

uling of the Board of Review of the I llinois Department of Employment Security (Boar d) that the

Board l acked ju

risdiction to hear

his untimel

y a ppeal. I n this cour

t, plaintiff claims that the Board erred in determining that his actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify him from rece iving unemployment insuranc e benefits. The rec ord shows

that plain

tiff was dischar ged fr om his positi on as a se curity guard with U-Haul Company of I

llinois following an altercation with a coworker. He a pplied for unemployment benefits and was deemed ineligible due to misconduct connected with his work. The claims adjudicator sent plaintiff a notice of decision by mailing it to his street address at 108 East 124th Street in Chicago. Plai ntiff appeal ed and was gran ted a h earing o n Febru ary 7, 200 8. At t hat he aring, plaintiff confirmed his 124th Street address, and on Februar y 8, 2008, the ref

eree mailed plaintiff1-08-2875

2

a letter affirming the determination that he wa s ineligible for benefits. That letter was sent to the address plaintiff confirmed the previous day , with a notice of his right to file an appeal within 30 days of the de cision being mailed. Plaintiff filed an appeal 75 day s after the decision was mailed, stating that he had not received any decision from the referee and listing his addr ess as 8326 South Ada Avenue. On June 4, 2008, the Board dismissed plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on his untimely filing. The B oard noted the mailing date to plaintiff's last known addre ss and the limitation of jurisdiction under section 801 of the Unemployment I nsurance Act (the Act) (820 IL CS 405/100 et seq . (West 200 8)), whic h provide s that the r

efere e's de cision be comes fin al if not appealed within 30 day s of the date of mailing (820 I LCS 405/801(A) (West 2008)). Plaintiff then filed a complaint for administrative review with the circuit court of Cook County , which confirmed the decision of the Board. This appea l followed. Althoug h plaintif f raises substantiv e issues r

elating to his alle ged misc onduct in t his appeal, the Board did not decide his appeal ba sed on the merits of his claim. Rather, the Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction based on plaintiff's untimely appeal. Our review of administrative law proceedings is limited to the propriety of the Board's decision ( Oleszczuk v. Department of Emp loy

ment Secu

rity , 336 Ill. App. 3d 46, 50 (2002)), and here we review de

novo whether

the Boa rd had jur isdiction o f plaintif

f's app eal ( Ferrari v. Department of Human Rights , 351 Ill. App. 3d 1099, 1103 (2004)). Under the Illinois Constitution, final administrative decisions are appeala ble only “ ‘as provided by law.’ ” Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Regional Board of1-08-2875

3

School Trustees , 218 Ill. 2d 175, 181 (2006), quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art VI, §§ 6, 9. Since “revie w of a final adminis trative d ecision ma

y on ly b e obtaine d as provi ded by statute, a court is said to exercise 'special statutory jurisdiction' when it reviews an administrative decision,” and a party see king to invoke it must strictly comply with the procedures prescribed by statute. Collinsville , 218 Ill. 2d at 181-82. Section 801(A) of the Act provides that a referee's de cision becomes final unless a party files an appeal with the Board within 30 day s of a decision being mailed. 820 IL CS 405/801(A) (West 2008). The 30 days a re calculated from the date of ser vice. White v. Illinois De

partmen t of Employ

ment Secu

rity , 264 Ill. App. 3d 851, 857 (1994). Service is complet

e by mailing t o the last k

nown addr

ess of the party entitled t o recei ve it. 820 I

LCS 405/804 (We st 2008); Esmail v. Department of Revenue , 371 Ill. App. 3d 778, 784 (2007). In this case, the refe

ree mailed the decision to plaintiff's last known address one da y after plaintiff confirmed that address was correc t. Plaintiff then had 30 days from the da te the decision

was ma iled t o appe al to t he Boar d of Re view. The 30 days laps ed on M arch 10 , 2008 . Pla inti ff's appeal to the Board of Review was not filed until April 24, 2008. He doe s not deny that he fa iled to comply with that statutory timeframe, but contends in his reply brief that he did not receive adequate notice and he resided at a diff erent address. Here, notice wa s sent via

United Sta

tes mail to

the addr ess plain tiff conf irmed dur ing his hearing. Plaintiff claims, without citation to authority , that he did not receive the notice in a timely manner, and thus the B oard had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. We disagree. Ser vice by mail is not in

valid simpl

y be cause a

party denies r eceivin g it ( Esmail v. Department of Revenue , 371 I ll. App. 3d 778, 784 ( 2007)), a

nd the sta tute does not confe r addition al author ity1-08-2875

4

on the Bo ard to en

tertain a ppeals be yon d the 30 da

ys a fter a d ecision has been mailed (8 20 IL CS 405/800 et seq. (West 2008)). Thus, the Board correctly found that it had no authority to review plaintiff's untimely appe al. Charlest on Community

Unit Schoo l District

No. 1 v. I

llinois Education Labor Relations Boa rd , 203 Ill. App. 3d 619, 623 (1990). Accordingly , we find that the service by mail, under the facts of this case, satisfied the require ments of d

ue proce ss and tha

t the Boa rd prope rly ruled tha t it did not ha

ve jurisd iction to consider plaintiff's untimely appeal. For the f orego ing rea sons, we a

ffirm. Affirmed. J. GORDON and R.E. GORDON, JJ., concur.