IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAWRENCE VOLK , : : C.A. No: K15A-10-0 04 RBY Appellant, : In and F or Kent C ounty : v. : : UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE : APPEAL BOARD, : : Appellee. :

Submitted: January 11, 2016 Decided : January 13, 2016
Upon Con sideration of Appellan t’s Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance A ppeals Board AFFIRMED

ORDER

Lawrence Volk, pro se . PaigeJ. Schmittinger , Esquire, Depu ty Attorney General, D epa rtment of Justice, Wilmington, Delaw are for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Young, J.Volk v. UIAB

C.A. No.: K15A-10-004 RBY January 13, 2016

2 SUMMARY Lawrence Volk ( “App ellant”) appeals th e denial of his claim for unempl oym

ent benef its by t he Unem ploym ent Insura nce Appe al Board ( “the Board”). Appellant

has faile d to present evidence that he w as entitle d to the disputed ben efits pay

ment. The deci sion below is AFFIRMED

.

FACTS On August 11, 2015, a

hearing w as held bef

ore an Appeals Ref

eree for the Board re garding the

Appellan t’s inel igibility

for one w eek of une mployment benefits. Appellant failed t o attend a m

andatory Reem ploym ent and Eligibility Ass ess ment (“RE A”) wor ks ho p s che du led for Ju ne 2 9, 2 01 5. T her efo re, a Cl aims Deputy found Appe llant ineli gible to re ceive ben efits for the wee k ending in July 4, 2015. A

ppellant did

not dispute hi s failure

to attend th e REA w orkshop, but he insisted tha

t he was ho spitalize d and too sic k to attend t he workshop or read his mail at that tim

e. Wh en asked, Appellant was unab le to produc e docum entation of the dates o f his hos pital sta y. On August 12, 2015, t

he Appea ls Refer ee issued a

decision a

ffirm ing the Claim s Deputy ’s findi ng. Appel lant appea led the Appeals Ref

eree’ s decision to the Board on August 14, 2015, indic ating that h e could prod uce evide nce of the dates of hi s hospitaliz ation. O n August 19, 2015, the B oard denie d the applic ation for further re view becaus e no new factu al or legal i ssue was pre sented. Appellant filed an a

ppeal wit h this Court

on Octobe

r 13, 2015. Attache d to Appellant ’s Opening Brief in support the

reof is a doctor’ s note date d August 19, 2015, conf

irmi ng that Appellant was under a doc tor’s c are fro m Apr il 27, 2015 toVolk 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. Thi s evidence was not be fore the Board pre viously when it iss ued a decision. The UIAB decli ned to file an Answe

ring Brie f, but sugge sted that th e dates indi cated by the d octo r’s not e, in fa ct, rai se qu esti ons a s to Ap pell ant’s eligibility to recei ve benefi ts during a f ar longer period tha

n the one w eek at issu e here. STANDARD OF REVIEW An appea l from an adm inistrativ e board's final orde r to this Cou

rt 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 a re revie wed de

novo . 2 “Th e Court doe s not weigh the eviden ce, dete

rmine credibili ty or m

ake its own factual finding s.” 3 DISCUSSION Appellant failed to attend the

required REA w orkshop whi ch could hav e maintained his eligibility to receive unem ployment benefits for the w eek at issue. In affir ming th e Claim s Deputy ’s deci sion, the A ppeals Re feree r

elaye d sym

pathy with Ap pell ant’s s itua tion . Howev er, the Appea ls Ref eree no ted th at App ellan t’s failure to com

ply wi th the statutory r

equirem ents for r eceipt of unemp loym

ent benefits wa s not the result of an y error by the state ag ency.Volk v. UIAB

C.A. No.: K15A-10-004 RBY January 13, 2016

4 Appellant ’s bela

ted presentation of a

doctor’ s note conf

irmi ng only t

hat he receive d medi cal car

e for a si x week pe

riod, inc luding the unpa

id week, does not change the accuracy of the Board’ s decision below. At the time the Board considere d his claim

and his appe al, Appellant did not present e vidence of the dates of hi s care. The Boar d’s dec ision that A

ppellant did

not com ply wi th state regulation s was fr

ee from legal er ror. Indeed, even the late physic ian’s not e me rely indicates on-goin g treatment, not inabilit y to attend a work shop. CONCLUSION The deci sion of the U

nempl oym

ent Insura nce Appe als Board

is AFFIRMED

. IT IS SO ORDERED

. /s/ Rober t B. Youn g J.
RBY /l mc cc: Counsel Mr. La wrence Volk ( via U.S. Ma

il ) Opinion Di stribution