IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAWRENCE VOLK, :

: C.A. No: K15A-10-004 RBY 

Appellant, : In and For Kent County 

:

v. :

:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE :

APPEAL BOARD, :

:

Appellee. :

Submitted: January 11, 2016

Decided: January 13, 2016 

Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal from

the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

AFFIRMED

ORDER 

Lawrence Volk, pro se.

Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,

Wilmington, Delaware for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Young, J.
Volk v. UIAB

C.A. No.: K15A-10-004 RBY

January 13, 2016 

2

SUMMARY

Lawrence Volk (“Appellant”) appeals the denial of his claim for

unemployment benefits by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“the

Board”). Appellant has failed to present evidence that he was entitled to the

disputed benefits payment. The decision below is AFFIRMED.

FACTS

On August 11, 2015, a hearing was held before an Appeals Referee for the

Board regarding the Appellant’s ineligibility for one week of unemployment

benefits. Appellant failed to attend a mandatory Reemployment and Eligibility

Assessment (“REA”) workshop scheduled for June 29, 2015. Therefore, a Claims

Deputy found Appellant ineligible to receive benefits for the week ending in July

4, 2015. Appellant did not dispute his failure to attend the REA workshop, but he

insisted that he was hospitalized and too sick to attend the workshop or read his

mail at that time. When asked, Appellant was unable to produce documentation of

the dates of his hospital stay. 

On August 12, 2015, the Appeals Referee issued a decision affirming the

Claims Deputy’s finding. Appellant appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision to

the Board on August 14, 2015, indicating that he could produce evidence of the

dates of his hospitalization. On August 19, 2015, the Board denied the application

for further review because no new factual or legal issue was presented. 

Appellant filed an appeal with this Court on October 13, 2015. Attached to

Appellant’s Opening Brief in support thereof is a doctor’s note dated August 19,

2015, confirming that Appellant was under a doctor’s care from April 27, 2015 to
Volk v. UIAB

C.A. No.: K15A-10-004 RBY

January 13, 2016 

1

 29 Del. C. § 10142(d); Wilson v. Breakers Hotel & Suites, 2010 WL 2562214 (Del.

Super. June 24, 2010).

2 Am. Fed’n of State, County and Mun. Employees, Council 81 v. State Pub. Employees

Relations Bd., 2011 WL 2176113 (Del. Super. May 25, 2011).

3 Bd. of Educ. of Capital Sch. Dist. v. Johns, 2002 WL 471175 (Del. Super. Mar. 27,

2002).

3

July 1, 2015. This evidence was not before the Board previously when it issued a

decision. The UIAB declined to file an Answering Brief, but suggested that the

dates indicated by the doctor’s note, in fact, raise questions as to Appellant’s

eligibility to receive benefits during a far longer period than the one week at issue

here. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appeal from an administrative board's final order to this Court is 

restricted to a determination of whether the Board's decision is free from legal

error and supported by substantial evidence.1 Questions of law are reviewed de

novo.

2

 “The Court does not weigh the evidence, determine credibility or make its

own factual findings.”3

DISCUSSION

Appellant failed to attend the required REA workshop which could have

maintained his eligibility to receive unemployment benefits for the week at issue.

In affirming the Claims Deputy’s decision, the Appeals Referee relayed sympathy

with Appellant’s situation. However, the Appeals Referee noted that Appellant’s

failure to comply with the statutory requirements for receipt of unemployment

benefits was not the result of any error by the state agency. 
Volk v. UIAB

C.A. No.: K15A-10-004 RBY

January 13, 2016 

4

Appellant’s belated presentation of a doctor’s note confirming only that he

received medical care for a six week period, including the unpaid week, does not

change the accuracy of the Board’s decision below. At the time the Board

considered his claim and his appeal, Appellant did not present evidence of the

dates of his care. The Board’s decision that Appellant did not comply with state

regulations was free from legal error. Indeed, even the late physician’s note merely

indicates on-going treatment, not inability to attend a workshop. 

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board is

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Robert B. Young 

 J.

RBY/lmc

cc: Counsel

Mr. Lawrence Volk (via U.S. Mail) 

Opinion Distribution