This opinion will be unpublished and 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 and 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, Ltd., Duluth, Minnesota (for relator) 

Harris Davis Rebar, Bellevue, Nebraska (respondent employer) 

Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, 

Minnesota (for respondent Department) 

 Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding 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 administrative appeal after the Department of 

Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that he is ineligible to 
2 

receive unemployment benefits because he quit his job. After relator did not answer his 

phone when the unemployment law judge (ULJ) twice called him for a telephonic 

hearing, the ULJ dismissed the appeal. Relator filed a request for reconsideration, stating 

that he was having technical issues with his phone. The ULJ denied relator’s request. 

We affirm. 

FACTS 

In February 2016, DEED determined that 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 employer. Relator filed an administrative appeal, 

and DEED sent him notice regarding a telephonic hearing for his appeal to be held on 

March 29, 2016, at 10:45 a.m. The notice stated, “The [ULJ] will call you to participate 

in this hearing. The telephone 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 telephone numbers listed 

below if you need to reschedule your hearing.” 

 At 10:48 a.m. on the hearing date, the ULJ 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.” The ULJ called relator a second time at 11:00 

a.m. Relator again did not answer, 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 call 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 statement further clarifying why he did not 

participate in the hearing: 

On March 26th 2016, I checked myself into a mental health and 

rehab facility in San Clement California. I was already 

schedule[d] for my Minnesota unemployment hearing on 

Tuesday March 28th 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 contact the number back but was unable 

to get through. Thank you for [your] time[.] 

 The ULJ issued an order affirming the 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 scheduled telephone hearing.” Relator appeals. 

D E C I S I O N 

Relator argues that the ULJ abused his discretion 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) (citation omitted). If an 

“appealing party fails to participate in the hearing, the [ULJ] has the discretion to 

dismiss the appeal by summary decision.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(b) (2014). 

“[I]f the party who failed to participate had good cause for failing 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 defined as “a reason that would have 

prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating in the 

hearing.” Id.

In his initial written statement, relator stated, “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 additional information and explained 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 working properly” and “would not take a charge from the 

charger.”1

Relator’s written statements provide minimal explanation regarding his failure to 

participate in the hearing. Relator does not provide any details regarding his phone’s 

 

1

 Relator’s brief provides further explanation 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. 1990) (citation omitted). 
5 

prior ability to receive calls, charge, or function 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 early 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 states 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 inconsistencies between relator’s first statement, which 

explained “the call was not able to come through . . . for some reason,” and his second 

statement, which cited his phone’s inability to “take a charge.” Although the ULJ’s order 

did not reference these seemingly 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 information provided by relator and the 

deference we must accord the ULJ’s decision, we cannot say 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.