[Cite as Crawford v. United Dairy Farmers, Inc. , 2013-Ohio-5047.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY TYCELIA CRAWFORD : : Appellate Case No. 25786 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial Court Ca se No. 2013-CV-2519 v. : : UNITED DAIRY FARMERS, INC., et al. : (Civil Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) Defendants-Appellees : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 15th da y of November, 2013.

. . . . . . . . . . . TYCELIA CRAWFORD, 114 Indianola Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45405 Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se MICHAEL DeWINE, by DAVID E. LEFTON, A tty. Reg. #0029438, Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Health & Human Services Section, Un employment Compensation Unit, 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Ohio Department of Job & Family Services NEAL SHAH, Atty. Reg. #0082672, Frost, Brown, Todd LLC, 3300 Great American Tower, 301 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, United Dairy Farmers, Inc.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . FAIN, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant Tycelia Crawford appeals from the dismissal of her administrative 2

 appeal from the denial of her claim for unemplo yment benefits. We c onclude that Crawford failed to file her appeal in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court until more than 30 days after the final decision of th e Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. Pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A), the appeal was properly dismisse d by the trial court as being untimely. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

I. Crawford’s Administrative Appeal from the Denial of her Application for Unemployment Benefits Is Dismissed as Untimely, and She Appeals to this Court

{¶ 2} Crawford was discharged from her employment at United Dairy Farmers (UDF) in 2012. Her application for unemp loyment benefits was originally granted. But in February 2012, the Ohio Department of J ob and Family Services Review Commission rendered a decision reversing the grant of benefits, upon a finding that Crawford’s employment was terminated due to an act of dishonesty. Crawford requested a review of that decisi on. The denial was affirmed by the Review Commission, which maile d its final decision on March 7, 2013. Crawford then filed a notice of administrative appeal with the M ontgomery County Court of Common Pleas on April 24, 2013. Her notice of appeal stated that sh e disagreed with the decision to deny her unemployment benefits. {¶ 3} The Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) and UDF filed motions to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that Crawford had not filed a timely notice of appeal. By entry, the trial court allowed Crawford to res pond to the motions by May 24, 2013. Crawford did not file any response, and the c ourt granted the motions to dismiss Crawford’s administrative appeal. From the dismissal of her administrative appeal, Crawford appeals to this 3

 court.

II. The Trial Court Correctly Dismissed Crawford’s Untimely Administrative Appeal fo r Lack of Jurisdiction {¶ 4} Although Crawford has not set forth any assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(3), we infer Crawford’s sole assignment of error to be: {¶ 5} THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING CRAWFORD’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. {¶ 6} Crawford’s brief on appeal is somewhat difficult to understand. It states, in its entirety, as follows: I Tycelia Crawford appealing [sic] because my first appeal was file [sic] late being I sent the first appeal to Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. As of March 21, after my case was terminated as of March 19, 2013 in Butler court since the was dismiss [sic] I though [sic] that my unemployed [sic] could be reversed [sic ] not knowing that the motion for appeal had to be filed in civil court. Thats [sic] why asking [sic] that my unemployment be granted at this time. {¶ 7} We assume that Crawford is arguing that her administrative appeal should not have been dismissed, because she mistakenly filed her notice of administrative appeal from the final decision of the Unemployment Review Co mmission with ODJFS rather than in the common pleas court. We note that there is nothing in the record before us to support this claim. {¶ 8} Our review of the dismissal of Crawford’s administrative appeal for lack of 4

 subject-matter jurisdiction is de novo. Yu v. Zhang, 175 Ohio App.3d 83, 88, 2008–Ohio–400, 885 N.E.2d 278, 282 (2d Dist.2008). R.C. 4141.282(A) st ates that “[a]ny interested party, within 30 days after written notice of the final decision of the unemployment compensation review commission was sent to all interested parties, may appeal the decision of the commission to the court of common pleas.” R.C. 4141.282(C) stat es that “[t]he timely filing of the notice of appeal shall be the only act required to perfect the appeal and vest jurisdiction in the court.” {¶ 9} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that “[a]n appeal, the right of which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. The exercise of the right conferred is conditi oned upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements.” McCruter v. Board of Review, Bu reau of Employment Services, 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 415 N.E.2d 259, 260 (1980), quoting Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp ., 151 Ohio St. 123, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949). Several appellate c ourts have held that administrative appeals of unemployment compensa tion claims have been properly dismissed when the appellant failed to file the notice of appeal with the common pleas court within the 30-day time limit set by

statute. Tru-Way Design & Eng., Inc. v. Wilson , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1240, 2008-Ohio-475; Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm. , 11th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 105, 2013-Ohio-2317; and Campbell v. Valley Homes Mut., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060424, 2007-Ohio-1490. {¶ 10} Crawford did not file her notice of appeal until more than forty days after the final decision of the Review Commission was “sent to all interested partie s.” Thus, her appeal was not timely. The fact that she erroneously sent the notice of appeal to the Review Commission (which is not a fact that can be esta blished from the record before us) does not cure that jurisdictional defect. Therefore, we conc lude that the court did not err in dismissing 5

 Crawford’s administrative appeal. {¶ 11} Crawford’s sole assignme nt of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion {¶ 12} Crawford’s sole assignment of error ha ving been overruled, the judgment of the court of common pleas is Affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL and GALLAGHER, JJ., concur.

(Hon. Eileen A. Gallagher, Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to: Tycelia Crawford Michael DeWine David E. Lefton Neal Shah Hon. Timothy N. O’Connell