IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RAYNA ADAMS, ) 

 )

Appellant, )

 )

v. )

 )

TIDALHEALTH CARDIOLOGY )

 ) C.A. No. S22A-11-002 MHC

 )

 )

AND )

 )

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )

APPEAL BOARD, )

 )

Appellees. )

ORDER

Submitted: January 17, 2023 

Decided: March 8, 2023 

On the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, AFFIRMED.

Rayna Adams, Pro Se Appellant.

Victoria E. Groff, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, 

Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal 

Board.

Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 

Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Division of Unemployment 

Insurance. 

Conner, J.
1

This 8th day of March 2023, upon consideration of the appeal of Rayna Adams 

(“Adams”) from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the 

“Board”), it appears to the Court that: 

Factual and Procedural History 

1. Adams was previously employed by TidalHealth Cardiology (the 

“employer”). 

2. Adams filed a claim for unemployment benefits on April 10, 2022. On April 

25, 2022, a Claims Deputy determined Adams was not eligible to receive 

benefits due to Adams’ failure to provide the Delaware Department of Labor 

Division of Unemployment Insurance (the “Department” or “Division”) with 

proper documentation regarding her identity.1 The Claims Deputy stated that 

pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3315(2), Adams was ineligible for failure to act in 

accordance with Department regulations.2 The Division mailed a copy of the 

Claims Deputy’s decision to Adams’ address of record on April 25, 2022.3

The mailing was not returned.4 Also noted in the mailed decision was the 

timeframe for an appeal. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(b) the appeal must be 

1 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 1. 

2

Id. See also 19 Del. C. §§ 3315, 3315(2). 

3 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 2. 

4

Id. 
2

filed within 10 calendar days after the decision was mailed.5If an appeal is 

not filed within 10 days, the Claims Deputy’s decision becomes final.

3. Adams untimely appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision. Although the 

Division’s record states the appeal was received on June 2, 2022, Adams 

claimed and the Board agreed that her appeal was considered filed when she 

sent an email on May 22, 2022, indicating her desire to appeal.6

4. A telephonic hearing was scheduled to take place in front of an Appeals 

Referee on June 27, 2022.7 Noted in bold on the Notice of Hearing that was 

mailed to Adams’ address of record was that “[t]he only testimony at this 

hearing will be on the issue of the claimant’s timeliness of appeal.”8 Adams 

did not appear for the hearing and the Appeals Referee issued a decision 

affirming the Claims Deputy’s decision and dismissing the appeal.9

5. Adams timely appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision on June 29, 2022.10

In Adams’ appeal request she states her reason for missing the hearing was 

due to her oversleeping.11

5

Id. See also 19 Del. C. § 3318(b). 

6 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 4, 42, 69. 

7

Id. at 12. 

8

Id. 

9

Id. at 14. 

10 Id. at 16. 

11 Id. at 17.
3

6. On July 13, 2022, the Board remanded the case back to the Appeals Referee 

to hold another telephonic hearing where the only issue to be discussed was 

the timeliness of Adams’ appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision.12

7. The Appeals Referee held a hearing on August 15, 2022, in which Adams 

and JJ Lang, a representative of the Department, were present. At the 

hearing Adams provided documentation showing she appealed the Claims 

Deputy’s decision on May 22, 2022.13 Adams did not provide any 

justification as to why she appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision after the 

deadline. Additionally, Adams did not provide any evidence of a 

Departmental error in the mailing of the Claims Deputy’s decision. 

8. The Appeals Referee issued a decision on August 15, 2022, which was 

mailed to Adams that same day.14 The Appeals Referee affirmed the 

decision of the Claims Deputy.15 In affirming the decision, the Appeals 

Referee stated there was no administrative error by the Department when 

12 It was noted in transcript from the Appeals Referee’s hearing that the Notice of Hearing stated 

Adams was permitted to present evidence regarding her unemployment benefits claim. However, 

the Appeals Referee explained that was an error and the only issue to be discussed at the hearing 

was the timeliness of Adams’ appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision. Adams indicated she 

understood. Id. at 21, 29-31. 

13 Id. at 42. 

14 Id. at 61. 

15 Id. at 60. 
4

mailing the Claims Deputy’s decision and no evidence from Adams that she 

filed an appeal on or before May 5, 2022.16

9. Adams appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision on August 21, 2022.17

10. The Board held a Review Hearing on August 24, 2022.18 The Board then 

issued its’ decision denying further review of the appeal and affirming the 

Appeals Referee’s decision on October 18, 2022.

19 The Board concluded 

there was no evidence that the Department used an incorrect address for 

Adams nor did Adams provide sufficient justification for her untimely 

appeal.20 Furthermore, in Adams’ appeal to the Board she states she had 

additional paperwork to support her claim.21 However, the Board found no 

additional documentation attached to Adams’ appeal.22 The Board also 

found no error in the Appeals Referee’s decision.23 The Board’s decision 

became final on October 28, 2022.24 Adams then timely appealed to this 

Court on November 4, 2022.25

16 Id. 

17 Id. at 67-68. 

18 Id. at 69. 

19 Id. at 70. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. at 68.

22 Id. at 70. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. at 71. 

25 Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3323 any party may appeal to the Superior Court within 10 days after 

the Board’s decision becomes final. This is unlike 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), which requires the party 

to appeal the Claims Deputy’s decision within 10 days of the date the decision was mailed. 
5

Standard of Review 

11.The Court’s appellate review is limited to determining whether the Board’s 

findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free 

from legal error.26 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”27

Discretionary decisions of the Board will be upheld unless the Board 

“exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored 

recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”28 The Court 

may not weigh evidence, decide questions of credibility, or engage in factfinding upon review of the Board’s decision.29

Analysis 

12. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), Adams had 10 days from the date of 

mailing to file an appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision. The decision was 

mailed on April 25, 2022, meaning Adams had until May 5, 2022, to file a 

timely appeal. The Appeals Referee held a hearing regarding the timing of 

the appeal. At the hearing Adams admitted that she did not send an email 

26 Toribio v. Peninsula United Methodist Homes, Inc., 2009 WL 153871, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 

23, 2009). 

27 Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981). 

28 Nardi v. Lewis, 2000 WL 303147, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2000). 

29 Toribio, 2009 WL 153871, at *2. 
6

requesting an appeal until May 22, 2022.30 Adams was then afforded the 

opportunity to present evidence or justification as to why her appeal was 

untimely. Adams failed to justify why the appeal was filed late. The Appeals 

Referee then dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Claims Deputy’s 

decision. 

13. After reviewing all of the available evidence and the record below, the 

Board exercised its discretion, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320(a), to not hear 

Adams’ appeal.31 There was no evidence that the Department made an error 

when mailing the Claims Deputy’s decision. In Delaware, if mail is correctly 

addressed, stamped and mailed a rebuttable presumption is created that the 

mail is received.32 The presumption may be rebutted if there is evidence that 

the mailing was never received.33 However, a lack of evidence that a mailing 

error occurred supports the presumption that the mail was properly 

addressed and received.34 Here, the Board found no evidence of an error on 

behalf of the Department.35 The burden then shifted to Adams who was 

unable to present any evidence to the contrary. In fact, Adams even 

30 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 42. 

31 19 Del. C. § 3320(a) gives the Board the discretion to “affirm, modify, or reverse any decision 

of an appeal tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted to the appeal tribunal. . . 

.”

32 Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr. 30, 2009), aff’d, 

984 A.2d 124 (2009). 

33 Id. 

34 Id. 

35 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 70. 
7

confirmed that her address of record, which is where the Department sent the 

decision, was her correct address.36 Since the Board concluded that there 

was no error made by the Department, Adams was presumed to have 

received the mailing.37 Due to the notice being sufficient, Adams’ due 

process rights were not violated.38

14. The Board’s discretionary decision to decline further review of the appeal 

did not exceed the bounds of reason or produce an injustice. The Board has 

previously explained why it avoids exercising power over late appeals 

stating:

in a situation where a party has filed a late appeal from an 

administrative decision, the Board is extremely cautious in assuming 

jurisdiction over the matter. It does so only in those cases where there 

has been some administrative error on the part of the Department of 

Labor which deprived the claimant of the opportunity to file a timely 

appeal, or in those cases where the interests of justice would not be 

served by inaction. Such cases have been few and far between . . . .39

Again, the Board concluded Adams did not provide any evidence of why the 

appeal was filed late.

40

36 Id. at 28. 

37 Id. at 70. 

38 Id. Straley, 2009 WL 1228572, at *3. 

39 Funk v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991). 

40 Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 70. 
8

Conclusion 

15. The Court finds that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed 

the Appeals Referee’s decision and denied further review of the appeal.

There was no evidence in the record that Adams was sent improper notice of 

the Claims Deputy’s decision including the appropriate timeframe to appeal. 

The Court also concludes that the Board’s discretionary decision to deny 

further review was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal 

error. Accordingly, the Board’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Mark H. Conner 

Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary