Opinion ID: 1569035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Brown has waived the issue of the untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal.

Text: ¶ 15. MDES argues that the asserted untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal to the ALJ is procedurally barred on appeal because Brown failed to raise the issue in the proceedings before MDES or in the circuit court below. This Court repeatedly has held that an issue not raised before the lower court is deemed waived and is procedurally barred. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 327, 330 (Miss.2004) (citing Davis v. State, 684 So.2d 643, 658 (Miss.1996); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss.1987)). However, the United States Supreme Court has explained recently that an administrative agency's nonjurisdictional filing requirements and deadlines, or claim-processing rules, may be waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, whereas jurisdictional filing requirements, which affect an appellate tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction, can never be waived. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs and Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 584, 596-97, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2009 WL 4573275,  (2009). ¶ 16. In the realm of workers' compensation proceedings, our cases appear to hold that, where the statutes and rules governing appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission deem a decision final upon the running of the allotted time for appeal, the appeal deadline is jurisdictional, and hence unwaivable. See, e.g., Dependents of Townsend v. Dyer Woodturnings, Inc., 459 So.2d 300, 302 (Miss.1984) (where statute states that the final award of the Commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party appeals within thirty days, the procedure set forth therein is jurisdictional of an appeal to the circuit court); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dir., Office of Worker's Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 97 F.3d 815, 818 (5th Cir.1996) (citing 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)) (holding that statute which provides a thirty[-]day period during which appeals may be filed before a decision of an ALJ or deputy commissioner will be considered final ... imposes a jurisdictional requirement ...). In other words, if such a decision is not appealed by the applicable deadline, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to review the decision. See also Carney v. Moore, 130 Miss. 658, 94 So. 890, 891 (1923) (citing Kramer v. Holster, 55 Miss. 243 (1877)) (time within which such appeals [from justice court] were required by the statute to be taken was a limitation on the jurisdiction of the circuit court). ¶ 17. The timeliness of an appeal from a claims examiner's initial determination to the ALJ is nonjurisdictional, and hence, it is a waivable issue. [6] Section 71-5-517 does not state that the claims examiner's initial determination automatically will become final if no appeal is filed within fourteen days. Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-517 (Rev.2000). In fact, the notice of the claims examiner's initial determination states that [i]f an appeal is filed after the 14-day period, a hearing will be held to determine whether good cause exists for the filing delay. Therefore, the fourteen-day deadline for filing an appeal to the ALJ in MDES proceedings is nonjurisdictional. As such, the untimeliness of such an appeal is a waivable issue, Union Pacific, 130 S.Ct. at 596-97, and will be procedurally barred if not raised before the lower court. Freeman, 868 So.2d at 330. ¶ 18. Brown has waived the issue of the untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal to the ALJ. After reviewing all the documents Brown filed before the ALJ, the Board of Review, and the circuit court, it is apparent that Brown failed to raise this issue in any of the proceedings below. Brown did not object to the untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal at the hearing before the ALJ. See Wilkerson, 630 So.2d at 1001. Further, Brown did not assert this issue in any of her filings before the Board of Review or the circuit court. Her arguments below focused squarely on the merits of the ALJ's and the Board of Review's decision to deny her unemployment benefits, based on their finding that she had been terminated for misconduct. In fact, the first time Brown raised the issue of the untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal to the ALJ was in her appellate brief before this Court. Therefore, we find that Brown waived her assertion regarding the untimeliness of Wal-Mart's appeal, and accordingly, it is procedurally barred on appeal.