This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0930 Ryan J. Wilson, Relator,

vs. Harris Davis Rebar, Respondent, Department of Employment a nd Economic Development, Respondent. Filed December 27, 2016 Affirmed Reyes, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 34399404-3 Shawn B. Reed, Maki & Overom, Lt d., Duluth, Minnesota (for relator) Harris Davis Rebar, Bellevue, Nebr aska (respondent employer) Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department) Considered and decided by Reyes, Presid ing Judge; Johnson, Judge; and T. Smith, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N REYES , Judge Relator Ryan J. Wilson filed an administ rative appeal after the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that he is ineligible to2 receive unemployment benefits because he quit his job. After relator did not answer his phone when the unem ployment law judge (ULJ) twice called him for a telephonic hearing, the ULJ dismissed the appeal. Relato r filed a request for reconsideration, stating that he was having technical issues with hi s phone. The ULJ denied relator’s request. We affirm. FACTS In February 2016, DEED determined th at relator is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his job following a change in a condition of employment that was not caused by his employe r. Relator filed an administrative appeal, and DEED sent him notice rega rding a telephonic hearing for his appeal to be held on March 29, 2016, at 10:45 a.m. The notice st ated, “The [ULJ] will call you to participate in this hearing. The telephon e number we currently have listed for you is . . . . If this is not correct, please log into your account . . . to make any changes. ” The notice further stated, “Please contact the Appeals Office immediately at the te lephone numbers listed below if you need to re schedule your hearing.” At 10:48 a.m. on the hearing date, the UL J called relator at the telephone number listed in the notice. Relator did not answer, so the ULJ left a voicemail stating, “I’ll try to call you back in the next five to ten minutes . If you’re not available, we will be going ahead without your participation today.” Th e ULJ called relator a second time at 11:00 a.m. Relator again did not an swer, and the ULJ left a second voicemail stating, “Because I’ve not been able to get ahold of you, we are going to go ahead without your participation today.” The ULJ issued an order dismissing relator’s appeal.3 Relator filed a request for reconsideration, stating: I believe this decision was made based on my inability to receive my hearing phone call. . . . On the date of my hearing I was having technical issues with my phone and the call was not able to come through as a result for some reason. I did attempt several times to ca ll from a land line but was unsuccessful in getting through. I have since purchased a new and reliable phone so this issue will not happen again. Relator later submitted an additional written st atement further clarif ying why he did not participate in the hearing: On March 26 th 2016, I checked myself in to a mental health and rehab facility in San Clement California. I was already schedule[d] for my Minnesota unemployment hearing on Tuesday March 28 th 2016. My wife and I both spoke with the staff at the facility and let them know that the court hearing was very important and my cell phone would be called at exactly 10:45 (central time), which was 8:45 (Pacific time). We had all the details squared away with the staff but the next day when I did get to my phone, it was not working properly. It would not take a charge from the charger and I missed the hearing phone call. I did try to contac t the number back but was unable to get through. Thank you for [your] time[.] The ULJ issued an order affirming th e prior order of dismissal. The ULJ determined that relator did not have good cause for missing the hearing because “[t]he reasonable person, acting with due diligence, would ensure that they have a working phone in order to participate in a schedul ed telephone hearing.” Relator appeals. D E C I S I O N Relator argues that the ULJ abused his di scretion in denying relator an additional hearing following a request for reconsideration. We disagree.4 “A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus v.
Davanni’s Inc. , 721 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn. App. 2006) (cita tion omitted). If an “appealing party fails to participate in th e hearing, the [ULJ] has the discretion to dismiss the appeal by summary decision.” Mi nn. Stat. § 268.105, su bd. 1a(b) (2014). “[I]f the party who failed to participate ha d good cause for faili ng to do so,” the ULJ must set aside the decision and order that an additional evidentiary hearing be held. Id. , subd. 2(d) (2014). “Good cause” is defi ned as “a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from pa rticipating in the hearing.” Id. In his initial written statement, relator stat ed, “I was having technical issues with my phone and the call was not able to come through as a result for some reason.” Relator’s subsequent statement provided additi onal information and e xplained that he had checked himself into a treatment center three days before the hearing; he had made arrangements with staff to access his phone for the hearing; and he did not answer because his phone “was not wo rking properly” and “would not take a charge from the charger.” 1 Relator’s written statements provide minima l explanation regarding his failure to participate in the hearing. Relator does no t provide any details regarding his phone’s

1 Relator’s brief provides further explanatio n for why he did not answer his phone. However, as conceded at oral argument, such details were not presented to the ULJ and, therefore, “may not be reviewed as part of the record on appeal.” Appelhof v. Comm’r of Jobs & Training , 450 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Minn. App. 19 90) (citation omitted).5 prior ability to receive calls, charge, or fu nction properly. Nor does relator offer an explanation regarding why he did not provide an additional number for this hearing or why he did not request access to his phone ear ly enough to determine that it was charged and working properly. Relator’s statements also fail to articulate why he did not reschedule the hearing. And, although he st ates that he tried “to call from a land line but was unsuccessful in getting through,” the record does not indicate what number he called, when he called, or if he attempted to leave a message. We also note the apparent inconsistencie s between relator’s first statement, which explained “the call was not able to come th rough . . . for some reason,” and his second statement, which cited his phon e’s inability to “take a charge .” Although the ULJ’s order did not reference these seemi ngly conflicting explanations, such a discrepancy does not support relator’s argument that he had a good cause reason for failing to participate in the hearing. Accordingly, based on the limited in formation provided by relator and the deference we must accord th e ULJ’s decision, we cannot sa y that the ULJ abused his discretion in determining that relator did not have good cause for failing to participate in the hearing. See Skarhus , 721 N.W.2d at 345 (affirming denial of additional hearing where relator missed hearing because of work , did not say she had been denied leave from work, and did not attempt to reschedule); Goodwin v. BPS Guard Servs., Inc. , 524 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Minn. App. 1994) (same, under earlier version of statute). Affirmed.