Court Opinion

ID: 9402309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 16:18:21.951477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:58.996423
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA,                                                    June 15, 2023
Respondent Below, Petitioner                                              EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 22-ICA-79          (Workforce Bd. of Review, No. X-2022-0066)

CHARLES T. GALLOWAY,
Claimant Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Workforce West Virginia (“Workforce”) appeals the August 4, 2022,
order of the Workforce West Virginia Board of Review (“Board of Review”) which
affirmed the ALJ’s June 13, 2022, order. Respondent Charles Galloway timely filed a
response in support of the Board of Review’s decision.1 Workforce did not file a reply.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board of Review’s order is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        The sole issue on appeal is whether Workforce provided good cause for two late
appeals. Thus, we will keep our recitation of the underlying facts brief. This matter began
when Mr. Galloway submitted a claim to Workforce for unemployment benefits on
February 28, 2021. By decision mailed March 3, 2021, Workforce found that Mr. Galloway
was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because of insufficient earnings
in the base period from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020.

       On September 21, 2021, Mr. Galloway filed an appeal of the March 3, 2021,
Workforce deputy decision. On October 28, 2021, Mr. Galloway’s appeal was denied by
the Board of Review as untimely. On November 8, 2021, Mr. Galloway filed an appeal of
the October 28, 2021, denial, and the matter was set for hearing before the administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) solely on the issue of good cause for the late appeal. The hearing was
held on November 28, 2021, at which the ALJ found that Mr. Galloway had attempted to
contact Workforce immediately after receiving its decision to determine what action he

       1
       Petitioner Workforce West Virginia is represented by Kimberly A. Levy, Esq.
Respondent Charles T. Galloway is represented by Andrew T. Beatty, Esq.

                                             1
needed to take. By decision dated December 1, 2021, the ALJ held that Mr. Galloway had
shown good cause for the late appeal and reversed the decision of the Board of Review.

        On January 25, 2022, the ALJ held a hearing on the merits of Mr. Galloway’s claim.
Workforce did not participate in the hearing. By decision dated February 1, 2022, the ALJ
remanded the case to the local office for a determination of whether Mr. Galloway had
sufficient wages in his base period to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
On March 21, 2022, Workforce appealed the ALJ’s decision by a letter stating that
Workforce did not receive notice of the hearing before the ALJ and did not receive the
ALJ’s decision when it was issued. On March 28, 2022, the appeal was rejected as untimely
by the Board of Review, who stated Workforce had not shown good cause for the late
appeal, which was received forty days after the eight-day deadline. On May 25, 2022,
Workforce appealed the March 28, 2022, decision of the Board of Review, asserting that
the appeal was filed late because the decision was lost within Workforce’s
interdepartmental mail.

       On June 9, 2022, a hearing was held before the ALJ on the issue of whether
Workforce had demonstrated good cause for filing its appeals of the February 1, 2022, and
March 28, 2022, decisions out of time. In a decision dated June 13, 2022, the ALJ found
that Workforce had not demonstrated good cause for either, or both, of the late appeals.
The ALJ stated Rule 3.3 of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Procedure
Rules provides that the time period for filing an appeal of a Workforce decision is within
eight days after the decision has been mailed to the claimant and the employer as stated in
West Virginia Code § 21A-7-8 (1978). The ALJ noted that Workforce provided no
explanation, except bureaucracy, as to why the decision was appealed one month and
thirteen days after the deadline had expired. Further, the ALJ found Workforce presented
no evidence that the agency did not receive notice of the January 25, 2022, hearing. The
ALJ also found that the evidence demonstrated that Workforce had received the ALJ
decision issued in February of 2022, well before it filed its appeal on March 21, 2022. On
June 21, 2022, Workforce filed an appeal of the ALJ’s decision. By order dated August 4,
2022, the Board of Review affirmed the decision of the ALJ in its entirety. It is from this
order that Workforce now appeals.

      Our standard of review is as follows:

             The findings of fact of the Board of Review of [Workforce West
      Virginia] are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court
      believes the findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one
      purely of law, no deference is given and the standard of judicial review by
      the court is de novo.

Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W. Va. 561, 563, 453 S.E.2d 395, 397 (1994).

                                              2
       On appeal, Workforce argues that excusable neglect and circumstances beyond its
control constitute good cause for its late appeal. For example, as reasons justifying the late
appeals, Workforce asserts that the first decision was not timely sent to the correct
department, and that the second decision was sent to Workforce’s legal department via
interdepartmental mail but never arrived. We are not persuaded by Workforce’s arguments.

       West Virginia Code § 21A-7-8 provides, in part, as follows:

       A claimant, last employer, or other interested party may file an appeal from
       the decision of the deputy within eight calendar days after notice of the
       decision has been delivered or mailed to the claimant and last employer as
       provided in section four of this article. The period within which an appeal
       from the decision of the deputy may be filed shall be stated in such notice.
       The decision of the deputy shall be final, and benefits shall be paid or denied
       in accordance therewith unless an appeal is filed within such time.

        Workforce argues that it demonstrated good cause for the late appeals and cites to
Hill v. Long, 107 W. Va. 664, 150 S.E. 6 (1929), which defined good cause in the context
of a default judgment as “fraud, accident, mistake, surprise, or some other adventitious
circumstance beyond the control of the party, and free from neglect on his part.”
Workforce also argues that excusable neglect constitutes good cause for the late appeals.
See Ethan B. v. Tracy W., No. 19-0830, 2020 WL 6393565, at *3 n.13 ( W. Va. Nov. 2,
2020) (memorandum decision) (“Excusable neglect is a somewhat elastic concept and is
not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
movant.”).2

       Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the final date for Workforce to appeal the
ALJ’s February 1, 2022, decision was February 9, 2022. Workforce did not file its appeal
until March 21, 2022, one month and thirteen days after the deadline expired. Workforce’s
only explanation as to the initial late appeal was that there were issues in communication
between various internal departments of the agency. The Board of Review denied the late
appeal on March 28, 2022. The final date to appeal this order was April 6, 2022. Workforce
did not appeal the second decision until May 25, 2022, one month and nineteen days after
the appeal deadline expired. Again, Workforce stated the late appeal was due to issues in
communication between its own departments. Workforce did not demonstrate any
circumstance beyond the agency’s control which led to these late appeals. As the agency
tasked with handling unemployment cases, Workforce was clearly aware of the eight-day
deadline for filing an appeal of a deputy’s decision. See W. Va. Code § 21A-7-8.

       2
         This decision also provides that “a mistake in construing court rules would
typically not constitute excusable neglect.” Id. at * 3.

                                              3
        Workforce also cites to West Virginia Code of State Rules § 84-1-6.4 (2018), which
provides that, “[a]ll appeals must be filed in accordance with the time periods set forth in
these rules . . . [f]or good cause shown, the Board or its designee may accept and process
a late appeal.” Workforce argues that the initial decision was sent to a department which
focused on data collection, rather than the legal department, and, therefore, good cause was
shown for the initial late appeal. Regarding the second late appeal, Workforce argues that
good cause exists because the administrative decision was sent to the correct employee via
interdepartmental mail, but that it did not arrive at its destination. We disagree. It is the
duty of Workforce to notify the proper employees of decisions made within the agency,
and Workforce is responsible for managing its interdepartmental mail system and ensuring
that necessary documents reach the designated employees.

       Workforce further argues that the central office was not notified of the January 25,
2022, hearing as a justification for the late appeal. However, the record demonstrates that
several individuals within the office received emails regarding the date of the hearing, as
well as a copy of the telephonic docket showing each hearing scheduled the week of
January 24, 2022. Based upon our review, we find that the record was more than sufficient
for the ALJ to find that Workforce failed to show good cause for the two late appeals of
the decisions dated February 1, 2022, and March 28, 2022, and for the Board of Review to
affirm the ALJ’s order dated June 13, 2022.

       For these reasons, we find that the Board of Review was not clearly wrong in
affirming the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the Board of Review’s August 4,
2022, decision.

                                                                                  Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                                             4