Case Name: ANTONIO PEREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1970-02-03
Citations: 4 Cal. App. 3d 62
Docket Number: Civ. No. 33958
Parties: ANTONIO PEREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 62–67

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 33958.
Second Dist., Div. Four.
Feb. 3, 1970.]
ANTONIO PEREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Counsel
Arthur Stahl for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and Anthony M. Summers, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent and for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion
FILES, P. J.
On January 5, 1967, the Director of Employment sent a notice to petitioner informing him he was not eligible to receive benefits for specified periods. The notice of determination stated, among other things:
"Reason for decision:
"You state you failed to report at your local as required—since 11-20-6.
"Since you are a member of a Union that controls job dispatching—you are required to meet the Union requirements to be available for referrals for work.
"When you claimed benefits for the weeks involved you stated you looked for work—which means you reported to your Union. You have made a false statement about a material fact—and for which benefits were paid improperly—False statement accessed [sv'c]."
At the top of the notice of determination was this statement: "This Decision Is Final Unless an Appeal Is Filed on or Before 1-16-7"
On the reverse side of that document appeared this language: "Information Relating to Appeals
"If you believe this determination to be contrary to law or the facts, you may file an appeal to a referee within ten (10) days from the date of mailing or service of this notice. An appeal may be filed on forms obtainable at any local office or by a letter addressed to the local office from which you received this notice."
Accompanying this notice was a "notice of overpayment," at the top of which was the statement in capitals "This decision is final unless an appeal is filed on or before 1-16-67." The notice said:
"Explanation:
"You were improperly paid benefits for the above weeks because you did not report to the union during the above weeks.
"Amount of Overpayment: $325.00
"If you believe that this charge is not proper you may appeal to a referee. An appeal must be in writing and must be filed within ten days from the date of mailing or service of this notice. This office will assist you in preparing an appeal if you desire."
Unemployment Insurance Code section 1328 provides: "The claimant and any employer who prior to the determination has submitted any facts or given any notice pursuant to Section 1327 and authorized regulations shall be promptly notified of the determination and the reasons therefor and may appeal therefrom to a referee within 10 days from mailing or personal service of notice of the determination. The 10-day period may be extended for good cause."
Unemployment Insurance Code section 1377 provides: "Within 10 days from the date of mailing or serving of the notice of overpayment, the person affected may file an appeal to a referee. . . . The 10-day period for an appeal to the referee or to the appeals board may be extended for good cause."
Petitioner did not file any notice of appeal until June 4, 1967. A hearing was held before a referee, where petitioner was represented by counsel. The issue was whether the appeal was timely. When petitioner was asked by his counsel why he did not appeal sooner he answered "Well, I thought I was guilty . . . Of not reporting to the union."
The referee found that no good cause had been shown for a late appeal and dismissed it as untimely. Petitioner then appealed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, which affirmed the decision of the referee.
Petitioner then filed this proceeding in the superior court, by a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to review that decision. The superior court heard the case upon the administrative record and concluded that petitioner had failed to show good cause for the late filing of his appeal. Judgment was entered against petitioner, from which he has appealed.
Petitioner's sole contention here is that he was misled by the notice of determination and notice of overpayment. His position is that it was true he did not report to his union, but he did look for work in other ways and should not have been disqualified. He asserts the director's notices to him caused him to think that the decision was correct and thereby induced him not to appeal. In effect he is saying he thought the decision was correct when he first heard of it, but he changed his mind almost five months later when he concluded that the department had made an error of law.
Unemployment Insurance Code section 1328 requires that when the eligibility of a claimant is determined, the claimant must be "notified of the determination and the reasons therefor." Section 1376 requires that when the Director of Employment determines the amount of the overpayment he "shall notify the liable person of the basis of the overpayment determination." Petitioner was told he had 10 days within which to appeal if he thought the decision was "contrary to law or the facts." Thus he was informed than even though he agreed with the department's statement of the facts, he was entitled to appeal if he believed that the law had not been applied correctly.
Both the administrative tribunal and the superior court have found that petitioner failed to show good cause for a late appeal. To the extent that the issue is factual, or subject to the discretion of the trier of the facts, it has been resolved against petitioner. To reverse the judgment would require this court to hold that, as a matter of law, the petitioner's good faith belief that the decision was correct extended the time for appeal until he was advised to the contrary.
We cannot say that, as a matter of law, this was "good cause" for a late appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Dunn, J., concurred.