Court Opinion

ID: 9707870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:23:37.135426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.163564
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion on the issue of whether Felders’ procedural due process rights were violated by the Review Board’s failure to advise him of his right to representation by counsel at the Referee’s hearing. In Sandlin v. Review Board of *192Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 328, the Fourth District held that due process requires a written notice be supplied to the claimant informing him of his right to appear by counsel. Unlike the majority, I do not believe a showing of actual prejudice should be required where a serious deprivation of basic procedural due process has occurred. Doe v. Hampton, (D.C.Cir. 1977) 566 F.2d 265, 277 n. 29 citing Yiu Fong Cheung v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, (D.C.Cir. 1969) 418 F.2d 460. Although the last paragraph of Sandlin might be thought to have required such a showing, I believe it merely demonstrated the serious consequences that followed the Review Board’s failure to advise Sandlin of his right to counsel.
Because Felders was not notified of his right to representation by counsel at the Referee’s hearing, I would, in the interest of justice, reverse the decision of the Review Board and remand for a new hearing.