I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CC- 0 2 1 4 2 - S CT MA R G I E B R O WN
v. M I S S I S S I P P I DEP AR T M EN T OF EMPL OYMENT SECUR I TY
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 24/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. VER NO N R . CO TTEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NEW TON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : RA Y C HAR L E S E VANS AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : L E ANNE F . BR ADY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 11/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M ar gi e B r ow n appeals t he deci s i on of the N ew t on C ounty C i r cui t C our t , af f i rm i ng the deni a l of

un e mpl oy mentbe ne f

i t s by the M i s s i s s i pp i D e pa rtmentof E m pl oym entSecur i ty. B e c a u se w e f

in d B ro w n ’s c laim to b e p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d o n a p p e a l, w e a ffirm th e c irc u it
court ’ s deci s i on. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. M arg ie B row n w as em p lo y ed fo r fo u r y ea rs a s a n o v ern igh t st o ck er w ith W al-M art A s s oci at es , I nc. , w orki ng i n the s t or e i n N ew t on, M i s s i s s i ppi
. She w as di s char ged on M ay

### 2

9, 20 08 , according t o W al -M art , f or vi olat i ng com pan y po l i cy regardi ng the l eng th o f br eaks. W al
- M arts t at ed thatal l empl oyees had r ece i ved r epea t ed tr ai ni ng and not i f i cat i on thatthey
w er e al l ow ed onl y f

i f t een mi nut es of

br eak t i m e. H ow ever , B r ow n t ook br eaks of atl eas t tw e n ty -fiv e m in u te s o n a t lea st tw o o c c a sio n s, th e las t o n e o n M a y 5 , 2 0 0 8 . A c c o rd in g to W a l- M a rt , B ro w n ’s d is c h a rg e re s u lte d fr o m th is la s t v io la tio n . ¶3
. B r ow n f

i l ed f orune m pl oym entbe nef i t s w i t h the M i s si ssi pp i D epart m ent of E m p loy m en t Se cu ri ty (M D E S ), w h ich c o n d u cted an inv esti g ati o n to d eterm ine B ro w n ’s
e l i g i b i l i ty . I n h i s “ No t i c e t o Em p l o y e ro f Cl a i ms De t e rmi n a t i o n De c i s i o n , ” t h e c l a i ms exami nerdet erm i ned thatW al -M arthad not“s how n that[ B r ow n] w as di s char ged f or
m isc o n d u c t co n n e c ted w ith w o rk .” T h u s , th e c laim s e x a m in e r fo u n d th a t “[B ro w n ] i s el i gibl e forben efi t s based o n thi s separ at i on ” and that “[ e] ff ect i ve 0 5/11/ 20 08 , [ W al -M art ’s ] exper i ence r at i ng r ecor d w i l l be cha r ged f orU nempl oym entI ns ur ance benef i t s pai d t o the cl ai m ant. . . . ” The not i ce i ncluded a s ect i on w i th i ns truct i ons f orappea l i ng the i ni t i al d e ter m in a tio n , w h ich sta ted th a t: I f you di s agr ee w i th t hi s deci s i on, an appeal or r econs i der at i on m us tbe f i l ed no l at erthan 06/ 20/ 2008 , w hi ch i s 14 cal endardays f r om the D at e M ai l ed. H ol i days and w eeke nds w i l l notext end the t i m e f orf i l i ng an appe al
. I f

an a pp e a l i s f

i l e d a f t e rthe 14 da y p e r i od , a he a r i ng w i l l be he l d t o de t erm i ne w hethergo od c a us e e xi s t s f orthe de l a y. Cont a c tM D ES f ormor e a pp e al i nf orm at i on. A ppeal s s houl d be subm i t t ed us i ng one of the f ol l ow i ng m etho ds: I n Per s on: W I N J ob C ent er Phone: 1- 866- 633- 7041 FA X : 1- 877- 994- 6329 M ai l : M D E S A ppeal s D epartm ent , PO B ox 1699,

J acks on M S 39215- 1699. T h e n o tic e s ta te d th a t th e “ D a te M a ile d ” w a s J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 8 (“ 0 6 /0 6 /2 0 0 8 ” ).Th e a p p e a l l e t t e ra c tu a l l y was s e n tb y W a l
- M a r t ’ s “ d u l y a u th o r i z e d a g e n t , ” TALX 1 U C M S ervi ces, Inc. , U C eX press , w hich han dles W al -M art ’s em ploym ent and l abo r m at t ers . 

### Acc ording to t

he Wal- Mart repres entative s who t es ti fi ed be fore the ALJ , the s ec ond 2 

### bre ak on May 5, 2008, starte d at 5:05 a .m . and en dedat 5:2 3 a.m ., “f or a totalof 28 minute s. ” By thisCourt ’s calculations , that isonly e ight een (18) minute s. At any rate , ei ghteenisstil l m orethan fi ft een, and Brown wa s witne ss ed on s everal ot her occ as ions takingb r e akso f

m orethan twenty m inut e s . Thus , theW a l
- Mart repre s e ntati ve s ’ and the ALJ’ s mis calculati on ishar ml es s error. 3 ¶4. B y l ett erda t ed J une 20, 2008, W al -M artapp eal ed the cl ai m s exam i ner’ s i ni t i al det erm i nat i on. I n the l ett er , W al
- M artbas ed i t s appea l on i t s as s ert i on that“[ B r ow n] w as 1 obs erved t aki ng exce s s i ve br eaks on 5/ 5/ 08
. ” T he l ett ers t at ed that“[ w ] e r eques tthat [ B r ow n] be di s qual i f

i ed f r om r ece i vi ng benef

i t s a nd the empl oyer ’ s a ccountbe r el i eved of char ges . ” The e nv e l op e i n whi c h the l e t t e rw a s mai l e d t o the M D ES w a s po s t m arked “06/ 20/ 2008. ” The appea l l ett erw as s t amped “R ece i ved” by the M D E S on June 25, 2008. ¶ 5 . A t e l e p h o n i c h e a r i n g wa s h e l d b e f o r e th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e l a w j u d g e ( “ ALJ ” ) , Ci n d y C. G i l l , on J ul y 21, 2008. O n J ul y 23, 2008, the A L J i s s ued herdeci s i on, s t at i ng f i r s tthat “[ W al
- M art ] t i m el y appea l ed a determ i nat i on of the [ M D E S] w hi ch conc l uded thatthe cl ai m antw as el i gi bl e f

orbenef i t s . . . . ” The A L J f

ound thatB r ow n w as w i tnes s ed t aki ng a tw enty- f i ve- m i nut e br eak i n D ece m ber2007, and a tw enty- thr ee- m i nut e br eak a nd a tw entyei ght
- m i nut e br eak on M ay 5, 2008. T hus , the A L J re ver s ed the cl ai m s exami ner ’ s deci s i on 2 and deni ed B r ow n’ s cl ai m forunempl oym entbenef i t s , f i ndi ng thatB r ow n had comm i t t ed di s qual i f yi ng conductf

orvi ol at i ng W al
- M art ’ s bre ak and m eal pol i cy. B r ow n appea l ed the A L J ’ s deci s i on t o the M D E S B oar d of R evi ew on J ul y 24, 2008, s t at i ng s i m pl y thather

### 4

“R eas on forA ppeal ” w as “I D I SA G R E E W I T H T H E D E C I SI O N . ” The B oar d of R evi ew
a ff ir m e d th e A L J ’s d e c is io n o n A u g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 0 8
. ¶6. Som et i m e pr i ort o Sept ember4, 2008, Brow n appea l ed t o the C i r cui tC our tof N ew t on C o u n ty . In a d o c u m e n t en tit led “ M y B rie f e m p lo y m e n t fo r m y a p p e a l,” B ro w n a ss e rte d to th e c irc u it co u rt th a t: I w as em pl oyed atW al m artSt or e # 1069. I w as w r ongf ul l y di s char ged. T he w r i t e[
- ] up w as mi s conduct s a nd pr oduct i vi ty. I di d notqui tmy j ob a nd I w as a v a i l a b l e f

o rwo r k on t h e d a t e s . I th i n k I s h o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d my u n e mp l o y me n tu n t i l I f

i n d a n o th e rj o b
. En c l o s e d i s a c o p y o f th e d a t e s o f

my absentees. T he N ew t on C ou nty Ci r cui tC our taf f i rm ed the B oar d of

R evi ew ’ s deci s i on on N ovember 24, 2008. B row n fi l ed her not i ce of appea l on D ece m ber24, 2008, ar gui ng onl y thatthe ci r cui tcourt ’ s j udgm ent“i s i n err oras a mat t erof l aw . ” S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7. T he s cope of

r evi ew i n an unempl oym ent - compensa t i on c a s e i s l i mi t e d. A bs ent f r aud, the f i ndi ngs of

f actof the B oar d of

R evi ew ar e conc l us i ve i f suppo rt ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e . J

o h n so n v. Miss. E m

p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 7 6 1 S o . 2 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). T h u s , ju d ic ia l r e v ie w is lim ite d to q u e s tio n s o f la w , w h ic h th is C o u rtre v ie w s d e n o v o . I d. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 8
. O n a p p e a l, B ro w n d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t M D E S ’s f in d in g s o f f

a c t ( i
. e. , thats he w as d i s c h a r g e d f

o rmi s c o n d u c t ) a r e n o ts u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . I n s t e a d , Br o wn arg u es, for the fi rstti m e, th at W al-M art’s ap p ea l t o the A L J from the c lai m s ex am iner’s i ni t i al det erm i nat i on w as unt i m el y fi l ed. T hu s , B r ow n ar gues thatthe A L J , the B oar d ofE ffe c tiv e Ju ly 1 , 2 0 0 4 , the n a m e o f th e M iss iss ip p i E m p lo y m e n t S e c u rity 3 C om m i s s i on w as change d t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof Em pl oym entS ecur i ty, O f f i ce of 

### 5 R evi ew , and the c i r c ui tc ou r tc omm i t t e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr ori n d e ny i ng he run e mpl oy ment benef i t s . A l though ther e i s ar guabl e mer i tt o B r ow n’ s as s ert i on, w e f i nd thi s i s s ue t o be p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d b e c a u s e B ro w n fa ile d to ra is e it in a n y o f t h e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w . I . W h e th e r W a l- M a r t’ s a p p e a l t o th e A L J w a s ti m e ly fi le d . ¶9. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 71- 5- 517 pr ovi des f our t een days i n w hi ch t o f i l e an appe al f r om a cl ai m s exami ner ’ s i ni t i al det erm i nat i on t o the A L J. M i ss. C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 517 (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). T h is fo u rte e n -d a y p e rio d is t o b e strictly co n stru e d
. W il kerson v. Miss. E m p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 6 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ). ¶10. H er e, the f

our t een- day per i od s t art ed runni ng on J une 6, 2008, the dat e the not i ce of th e c la im s e x a m in e r’ s in itia l d e te rm in a tio n w a s m a ile d to B ro w n a n d W a l- M a rt . I d. ; Miss. E m ploym ent

Sec. Com m ’n v. P arker , 903 So. 2d 42, 44 ( M i s s . 2005)
. T hus , t he ap peal deadl i ne w as J une 20, 2008, f our t een c al endardays l at er . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 517. W al
- M a r t ’ s a pp e a l l e t t e rw a s po s tmarke d a nd mai l e d o n J un e 20 , 20 08 , bu ti tw a s not sta m p e d “ R e c e iv e d ” b y th e M D E S a p p e a ls d e p a rtm e n t u n til Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . B ro w n a ss e rts that , f orthe purpos es of “f

i l i ng an appe al ” underSect i on 71- 5- 517, the oper at i ve dat e i s the d a te th e a p p e a l is “ re c e iv e d ,” a n d th u s , W a l- M a r t’ s a p p e a l to th e A L J w a s u n tim e ly fi le d
. ¶11. M D E S as s ert s that , a f t erthi s Cou rtdecided W il kers on and P arker , i t “i ns t i tut ed a po l i cy thati tw ou l d co nsi der an ap peal t i m el y fi l ed if i tw as pos tm arked

b y th e fo u rt e e n th ( 14th) day. ” I n W

il kers on , w e s truck dow n an unpubl i s hed, i nt ernal pol i cy of the M i s s i s s i ppi E m p lo y m e n t S e c u rity C o m m iss io n (M E S C ), w h ich a llo w e d a n a d d iti o n a l th re e d a y s in 3th e G o v e rn o r. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -5-1 1 (F ) an d A m en d m en t N o tes (S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ).

A c c o rd in g to M D E S , th e re a re fo u r m a in re a s o n s fo r i ts n e w “ p o s tm a rk p o lic y .” 4 Fi r s t , pur s uantt o W

il kers on and P arker , “[ i ] f the part i es ar e bound by t he m ai l dat e and not the r ece i ptdat e t o cal cul at e the f our t een ( 14) day per i od, i ti s onl y equi t abl e thatthe part i es be al l ow ed t o m ai l thei rappea l on the f our t eenth ( 14th) day. ” Second, due t o the l ar ge amountof

m ai l M D E S r ece i ves dai l y, s om e mai l m ay t ake s ever al days t o gets or t ed t o the appr opr i at e depa rtm ent , s o “the supp or ts t af f i n appea l s m us tl ook t o the pos tm ark on the envel ope t o det erm i ne i f a not i ce of

appeal w as f

i l ed t i m el y. ” Thi r d, due t o the l ar ge number of appea l s r ece i ved dai l y by the appe al s departm ent , notal l m ai l can be opened on the day it is re c e iv e d , so th e sta ff m u s t lo o k to th e p o s tm a rk d a te to d e te rm in e its tim e lin e s s . Fi nal l y, “due t o i ncons i s t enci es w i th the mai l [ , ]
. . . M D E S does notbel i eve aparty s houl d be pr ocedur al l y barr ed due t o an i s s ue w i th the mai l
. ” 

### 6 w h ic h to fi le a n a p p e a l. W il kers on , 6 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 10 0 2
. T h is C o u rtfou n d that the “ statu tory
s cheme doe s notcont ai n a pr ovi s i on w hi ch gi ves the C om m i s s i on the pow ert o m odi f y the
s t atut e by arbi tr ar i l y orcapr i ci ous l y addi ng t hr ee days t o the t i m e f orappea l
. ” I

d . I n P arker , w e hel d that , beca us e M E SC i s nota ci r cui t , chanc ery, orcounty cour t , “the M i s s i s s i ppi R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a re n o t ap p lica b le to its a d m in istra tiv e h e a rin g s o r a p p e a ls [.]” P arker , 903 So. 2d at44- 45. T hus , w e hel d thatthe cl ai m antw as notaf f or ded an a ddi t i onal th re e d a y s, p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 6 (e ), in w h ich to file a n a p p e a l. I d. M D E S ar gues t hatt he “pos tm ark pol i cy” i s “a r eas onabl e pol i cy cr eat ed t o ens ur e that al l i nt er es t ed part i es ’ r i ght s ar e pr es erved w hen they f i l e an appeal t o the A L J orB oar d of R e v ie w v ia th e m a il.” 4 ¶12. N everthel es s , M D E S’ s new “pos tm ark pol i cy” i s an i nt ernal pol i cy, the l i kes of w hi ch thi s C ourtoverrul ed i n W il kers on . I n f

act , thi s C our ts peci f

i cal l y i ns truct ed i n W

il kers on thatM D E S shoul d m odi f y t he appea l
- f

i l i ng proc edur es onl y “by publ i s hed rul e and notby
an unw r i t t en pr act i ce s ubj ectt o ad hoc a nd s por adi c appl i cat i on. ” W il kers on , 630 So. 2d at

### 7

1 0 0 2 . In fac t, th e sta tu to ry sc h e m e g o v e rn in g M D E S e x p re ss ly p ro v id e s th a t ap p e a ls s h o u ld b e g o v e rn e d b y p re sc rib e d re g u latio n s. S p e c ifica lly , S e c tio n 7 1 -5 -5 2 5 p ro v id e s th a t: T he manneri n w hi ch appeal ed cl ai m s s hal l be pr es ent ed and the conduc tof hear i ngs and appe al s s hal l be i n accor dance w i th re gul at i ons pr es cr i bed by the boar d of r evi ew f orde t erm i ni ng the r i ght s of the part i es , w hetherornots uch r egul at i ons conf

orm t o comm on l aw ors t atut ory rul es of evi dence and other te c h n ic a l ru le s o f p ro c e d u re . M i s s . C od e A nn . § 71- 5- 525 ( R ev. 2000)
. H ence , i f M D E S w i s hes t o def

i ne the dat e an appea l i s “f

i l ed” a s the dat e i ti s pos tm arked, w e thi nk its houl d, ata mi ni m um , do s o by p u b lis h e d ru le
. I

d. ; W il kers on , 6 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 2
. ¶13. I tappea r s t o thi s C our tthatM D E S’ s curr entpubl i s hed rul es def i ne the dat e of “f

i l i ng” an appe al as the dat e o f “ del i very. ” Speci f i cal l y, the appl i cabl e s ect i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi A d m in istra tiv e C o d e re latin g to M D E S a p p e a ls s tate s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: ( A) T i me f

o rF i l i n g : P u r s u a n tt o S e c t i o n s 7 1
- 5
- 5 1 7 a n d 7 1
- 5
- 5 1 9 o f th e L a w, an i nt er es t ed party m us tf i l e an appe al foran i ni t i al or amended det erm i nat i on w i thin f ou rt een (14 ) days o f the d at e the d et erm i nati on w as m ai l ed to the las t know n addr es s . I f

t he l as tday t o appea l f

al l s on a Satur day, Sunday, orother l e g a l h o l i d a y , o rd a y i n wh i c h th e Ag e n c y i s c l o s e d f o rb u s i n e s s , th e n th e t i me al l ow ed t o appea l s hal l run unt i l the end of the nextbus i nes s day. ( B ) M ethod of

Fi l i ng: A ppeal s s hal l be f i l ed usi ng m ethods and pr ocedur es the A gency ha s es t abl i s hed. T hos e met hods
. . . s peci f i cal l y i ncl ude the f

ol l ow i ng: (1) del i ver

y by the U ni t ed St at es Post al Servi ces t o the addr es s pr ovi ded on the det erm i nat i on ordeci s i on bei ng appea l ed; ( 2) f axi ng t o the numberpr ovi ded i n the det erm i nat i on o rdeci s i on bei ng appea l ed; (3) in-p erso n at an y W IN Jo b C en ter; ( 4) el ectr oni cal l y atthe addr ess pr ovi ded i n the det erm i nat i on ordeci s i on bei ng appea l ed; or ( 5) t el ephoni cal l y b y cal l i ng the numberpr ovi ded on the det erm i nat i on or deci s i on bei ng appea l ed.C onver s el y, M D E S’ s of f i ci al w ebs i t e s t at es that“ [ an] appeal r eques tm ay be made 5

. . . by m ai l i ngo rf

a x i n g a s i g n e d l e t t e ri n d i c a t i n g a de s i r e t o a p p e a l t o [ M DES]
. ” M DES w e b site , “A p p e a ls P ro c e ss ,” h ttp ://w w w .m d e s.m s.g o v /w p s/p o rta l# n u ll ( f ol l ow “A ppeal Inf orm at i on” hyper l i nk un der “U nem ploym ent Servi ces” t ab, then fol l ow “A pp eal s Process” h y p e rlin k u n d e r “ A p p e a l In fo rm a tio n ” h e a d in g ) (la st v isited M a rc h 9 , 2 0 1 0 ) (e m p h a sis added)
. 

### 8 3 8 -00 0 -00 6 M iss. C o d e R . § 2 0 0
. 0 1 (W eil 2 0 0 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A s ca n b e se en , M D E S ’s
r egul at i on i ncludes o nl y one “method of f i l i ng” appl i cabl e t o the mai l , and thatm ethod
re q u ir e s “ d e liv e ry ” to M D E S
. Id
. I tdoes nots ay “mai l i ng” t o M D E S. T her ef or e, acc or di ng 5 to M D E S ’s p u b lish e d reg u latio n s, an ap p e a l fro m an initia l de ter m in a tio n is n o t “f iled ” u n til i ti s “del i ver ed” t o ( i
. e. , re c e iv e d b y ) t h e M D E S
. Id
. ¶14. A ppl yi ng thi s rul e t o the i ns t ant cas e, W al
- M art ’ s appea l w as unt i m el y “f i l ed. ” T he
c laim s e x a m in e r’s in iti a l d e ter m in a tio n , m a iled o n Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 8 , sp e c ifica lly in fo rm e d W a lM art th at i ts ap p ea l m u st be “ fil ed ” n o lat er tha n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 8
. W al-M art’s ap p ea l l ett er, al t hough po s tmarke d o n J un e 20 , 20 08 , w a s no ts t a mped“ Rec e i ve d” by M D ES unt i l J une 25, 2008. B eca us e i tw as not“ del i ver ed” unt i l J une 25, i tw as not“f i l ed” unt i l J une 25 under the t erm s of

Sect i on 200. 01 of

M D E S’ s r egul at i ons . H ence , purs uantt o Sect i on 200. 01, W al
- M art ’ s appeal f

r om the i ni t i al det erm i nat i on w as “f i l ed” f i ve days l at e. B utthi s does notend the i nqui ry. II . W h e th e r B r o w n h a s w a iv e d th e iss u e o f t h e u n tim e lin e ss o f W a l-M a r t’s a p p e a l. ¶15. M D E S a rg u e s th a t t h e a s s e rt e d u n tim e lin e ss o f W a l-M a rt’s a p p e a l to th e A L J is pr ocedur al l y barr ed on appe al beca use B row n f ai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue i n the pr ocee di ngs bef or e M D E S ori n the ci r cui tcourtbel ow . T hi s C our tre peat edl y has hel d thatan i s s ue not

### 9

r ai s ed bef

or e the l ow erc our ti s de emed w ai ved and i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. P u b. E m ployees’ R et . Sys . v. Fr eem an , 868 So. 2d 327, 330 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng D a v is v. Sta te , 6 84 So. 2d 6 4 3 , 6 5 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); Co le v . Sta te , 525 So. 2d 365, 369 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. H ow ever , the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rth as e x p lai n ed rec en tl y that an ad m inistrati v e a g en cy ’s nonj ur i s di ct i onal f

i l i ng r equi r ement s and dea dl i nes , or“cl ai m - pr oces s i ng rul es , ” may be
w ai ved i f not r ai sed atthe earl i estop po rtun i ty, w hereas j uri sdi ct i on al fi l i ng requi rem ents , w h ic h a ff

e c t a n a p p e lla te tr ib u n a l’ s s u b je c t- m a tte r ju ri s d ic tio n , c a n n e v e r b e w a iv e d
. U ni on P a c . R . Co . v. B h d

. o f L o c o m o tive E n g ’rs a n d T ra in m e n G e n . Co m m . o f A d ju stm e n t, Ce n t. R egion , — U . S
. — , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 5 8 4 , 5 9 6 -97 , — L . E d
. 2 d — , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 5 7 3 2 7 5 , * 9 (20 0 9 ). ¶ 1 6
. In th e re a lm o f w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n p ro c e e d in g s, o u r c a se s a p p e a r to h o ld th a t,
w her e the s t atut es and rul es governi ng appea l s f r om the W orker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on d eem a decis i on “f i nal ” upon the runni ng of the al l ot t ed t i m e f

orappea l , the
a p p e a l d e a d lin e is ju ri s d ic tio n a l, a n d h e n c e u n w a iv a b le
. See, e. g. , D e pe nde nt s of Townse nd
v. D yerW oodturnings, I

nc. , 459 So. 2d 300, 302 ( M i s s . 1984) ( w her e “s t atut e s t at es thatthe f i nal aw ar d of

the C om m i s s i on sh a ll b e c o n c lu siv e a n d b in d in g ” u n les s e ith e r p a rty a p p e a ls
w ith in th irty d a y s, “ th e p ro c e d u re se t fo rth th e re in is ju risd ictio n a l o f a n a p p e a l to th e c irc u it
c o u rt” ); A et

na Cas . & Sur. Co. v. D ir. , O f f ice of W orker ’s Com

p. P r ogr am s, U

. S. D ep’t of L abor , 9 7 F .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (c iti n g 3 3 U .S .C .A . § 9 2 1 (a )) (h o ld in g th a t sta tu te
w hi ch “pr ovi des a thi r ty[
- ] day per i od dur i ng w hi ch appe al s m ay be f i l ed bef or e a de ci s i on of an A LJ orde pu ty c omm i s s i on e rw i l l be c on s i de r e d f i na l
. . . i mpos e s a j ur i s di ct i onal
re q u ire m e n t . . .”). In o th e r w o rd s, if s u c h a d e c isio n is n o t ap p e a led b y th e a p p lica b le d e a d lin e , th e c ir c u it c o u rtis w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d e c is io n . See a l so Car ney v.H ow ever , the four t een- day dea dl i ne t o appea l an A L J ’ s deci s i on t o the B oar d of 6 R evi ew , and the t en- day per i od i n w hi ch t o appea l the B oar d of R eview ’ s deci s i on t o the ci r cui tcourt , ar e j ur i s di ct i onal deadl i nes . T he A L J ’s d eci si on “sha l l be dee m ed t o be the f i na l d e c i s i on o f

the e xe c ut i ve d i r e c t oru nl e s s , wi thi n f ou r t e e n ( 14 ) d a ys a f

t e rthe dat e of not i f i cat i on of

s uch dec i s i on, f

ur therappeal i s i ni t i at ed .
. . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 519 ( Supp. 2009)
. Si m i l ar l y, “ [ a] ny de ci s i on of the B oar d of

R evi ew , i n the abs ence of an appe al t her ef r om as h e r e i n pr ov i de d, s ha l l b e c ome f i na l t e n ( 10 ) d a ys a f t e rthe d a t e of not i f i cat i on[
. ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 529 ( R ev. 2000). A s such, t he unt i m el i nes s of s uch an appe al i s an i s s ue thatcannotbe f or f ei t ed orw ai ved. 

### 10 Moo re , 94 So. 890, 891 ( M i s s . 1923) ( ci t i ng K r am erv. Hol

s ter , 5 5 M i s s . 2 4 3 ( 1 8 7 7 ) ) ( “ t i me
w i thi n w hi ch s uch appe al s [ f r om j us t i ce c our t ] w er e r equi r ed by the s t atut e t o be t aken w as
a lim ita tio n o n th e ju ri s d ic tio n o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt ” ). ¶ 1 7 . Th e t i me l i n e s s o f a n ap p e a l f

r o m a c l a i ms e x a mi n e r ’ s i n i t i a l d e t e rmi n a t i o n t o th e ALJ i s nonj ur i s di ct i onal , and henc e, i ti s a w ai vabl e i s s ue. Sect i on 71-5- 517 does notst at e that 6 th e c laim s e x a m in e r’s in iti a l d e ter m in a tio n a u to m a tica lly w ill b e c o m e fi n a l i f n o a p p e a l is f i l ed w i thi n f

our t een da ys . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 517 ( R ev. 2000)
. I n f act , the not i ce of the cl ai m s exami ner ’ s i ni t i al det erm i nat i on s t at es that“[ i ] f an appe al i s f

i l ed af t erthe 14- day p e ri o d , a h e a ri n g w ill b e h e ld to d e te rm in e w h e th e r g o o d c a u s e e x is ts f o r t h e fi lin g d e la y .” T her ef or e, the f our t een- day dea dl i ne f

orf i l i ng an appe al t o the A L J i n M D E S pr ocee di ngs is n o n ju ri s d ic tio n a l. A s s u c h , th e u n tim e lin e s s o f s u c h a n a p p e a l i s a w a iv a b le is s u e , U ni on P a c ific , 130 S. C t . at596- 97, and w i l l be pr ocedur al l y barr ed i f notr ai s ed bef

or e the l ow er
c o u rt . Fr eem an , 868 So. 2d at330. ¶18
. B row n h as w aive d the i ssue of the u nti m el i ness of W al -M art ’s app eal t o the A L J. A f t err evi ew i ng al l the docum ent s B r ow n fi l ed bef or e the A L J , t he B oar d of R evi ew , and the ci r cui tcourt , i ti s app arentthatB r ow n f ai l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue i n any of the pr ocee di ngs

### 11

b elow
. B row n d id n o t object t o the u n ti m eli n ess o f W al-M art’s ap p ea l atthe h ea ri n g b efo re th e A L J . See W

il kers on , 630 So. 2d at1001. Fur ther , B r ow n di d notas s ertthi s i s s ue i n any of herf i l i ngs bef or e the B oar d of

R evi ew or the ci r cui tcourt . H erar gum ent s bel ow f ocus ed
s quar el y on t he m eri t s of the A L J ’ s and the B oar d of R evi ew ’ s deci s i on t o deny her
u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits, b a se d o n th e ir fin d in g th a t sh e h a d b e e n term in a ted fo r m isc o n d u c t. I n f act , the f i r s tt i m e B r ow n ra i s ed the i s s ue of t he unt i m el i nes s of W al
- M art ’ s appea l t o the A L J w as i n he rappel l at e br i ef be f or e thi s C our t . T her ef

or e, w e f i nd thatB r ow n w ai ved her
a ss e rtio n reg ard ing the u n ti m eli n ess o f W al-M art’s ap p ea l, an d ac co rd in g ly , itis p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d o n a p p e a l. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. A s B r ow n’ s onl y as s ert ed err or on appea l i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, w e m us t af f i rm the
c irc u it co u rt’s d e c isio n , w h ich a ffirm e d th e M D E S ’s d e n ial o f u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits to B r ow n. ¶ 2 0
. AF F I RM ED . CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONC UR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. RA ND OL P H, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .