Court Opinion

ID: 9378091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 17:02:44.969505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.018874
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RAYNA ADAMS,                          )
                                      )
      Appellant,                      )
                                      )
v.                                    )
                                      )
TIDALHEALTH CARDIOLOGY                )
                                      )         C.A. No. S22A-11-002 MHC
                                      )
                                      )
AND                                   )
                                      )
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE                )
APPEAL BOARD,                         )
                                      )
      Appellees.                      )

                                  ORDER

                         Submitted: January 17, 2023
                           Decided: March 8, 2023

On the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, AFFIRMED.

Rayna Adams, Pro Se Appellant.

Victoria E. Groff, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board.

Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Division of Unemployment
Insurance.

Conner, J.
This 8th day of March 2023, upon consideration of the appeal of Rayna Adams

(“Adams”) from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the

“Board”), it appears to the Court that:

                           Factual and Procedural History

    1. Adams was previously employed by TidalHealth Cardiology (the

       “employer”).

    2. Adams filed a claim for unemployment benefits on April 10, 2022. On April

       25, 2022, a Claims Deputy determined Adams was not eligible to receive

       benefits due to Adams’ failure to provide the Delaware Department of Labor

       Division of Unemployment Insurance (the “Department” or “Division”) with

       proper documentation regarding her identity.1 The Claims Deputy stated that

       pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3315(2), Adams was ineligible for failure to act in

       accordance with Department regulations.2 The Division mailed a copy of the

       Claims Deputy’s decision to Adams’ address of record on April 25, 2022.3

       The mailing was not returned.4 Also noted in the mailed decision was the

       timeframe for an appeal. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(b) the appeal must be

1
  Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 1.
2
  Id. See also 19 Del. C. §§ 3315, 3315(2).
3
  Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 2.
4
  Id.
                                             1
       filed within 10 calendar days after the decision was mailed.5 If an appeal is

       not filed within 10 days, the Claims Deputy’s decision becomes final.

    3. Adams untimely appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision. Although the

       Division’s record states the appeal was received on June 2, 2022, Adams

       claimed and the Board agreed that her appeal was considered filed when she

       sent an email on May 22, 2022, indicating her desire to appeal.6

    4. A telephonic hearing was scheduled to take place in front of an Appeals

       Referee on June 27, 2022.7 Noted in bold on the Notice of Hearing that was

       mailed to Adams’ address of record was that “[t]he only testimony at this

       hearing will be on the issue of the claimant’s timeliness of appeal.”8 Adams

       did not appear for the hearing and the Appeals Referee issued a decision

       affirming the Claims Deputy’s decision and dismissing the appeal.9

    5. Adams timely appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision on June 29, 2022.10

       In Adams’ appeal request she states her reason for missing the hearing was

       due to her oversleeping.11

5
  Id. See also 19 Del. C. § 3318(b).
6
  Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 4, 42, 69.
7
  Id. at 12.
8
  Id.
9
  Id. at 14.
10
   Id. at 16.
11
   Id. at 17.
                                             2
     6. On July 13, 2022, the Board remanded the case back to the Appeals Referee

        to hold another telephonic hearing where the only issue to be discussed was

        the timeliness of Adams’ appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision.12

     7. The Appeals Referee held a hearing on August 15, 2022, in which Adams

        and JJ Lang, a representative of the Department, were present. At the

        hearing Adams provided documentation showing she appealed the Claims

        Deputy’s decision on May 22, 2022.13 Adams did not provide any

        justification as to why she appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision after the

        deadline. Additionally, Adams did not provide any evidence of a

        Departmental error in the mailing of the Claims Deputy’s decision.

     8. The Appeals Referee issued a decision on August 15, 2022, which was

        mailed to Adams that same day.14 The Appeals Referee affirmed the

        decision of the Claims Deputy.15 In affirming the decision, the Appeals

        Referee stated there was no administrative error by the Department when

12
   It was noted in transcript from the Appeals Referee’s hearing that the Notice of Hearing stated
Adams was permitted to present evidence regarding her unemployment benefits claim. However,
the Appeals Referee explained that was an error and the only issue to be discussed at the hearing
was the timeliness of Adams’ appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision. Adams indicated she
understood. Id. at 21, 29-31.
13
   Id. at 42.
14
   Id. at 61.
15
   Id. at 60.
                                                3
        mailing the Claims Deputy’s decision and no evidence from Adams that she

        filed an appeal on or before May 5, 2022.16

     9. Adams appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision on August 21, 2022. 17

     10. The Board held a Review Hearing on August 24, 2022.18 The Board then

        issued its’ decision denying further review of the appeal and affirming the

        Appeals Referee’s decision on October 18, 2022.19 The Board concluded

        there was no evidence that the Department used an incorrect address for

        Adams nor did Adams provide sufficient justification for her untimely

        appeal.20 Furthermore, in Adams’ appeal to the Board she states she had

        additional paperwork to support her claim.21 However, the Board found no

        additional documentation attached to Adams’ appeal.22 The Board also

        found no error in the Appeals Referee’s decision.23 The Board’s decision

        became final on October 28, 2022.24 Adams then timely appealed to this

        Court on November 4, 2022.25

16
   Id.
17
   Id. at 67-68.
18
   Id. at 69.
19
   Id. at 70.
20
   Id.
21
   Id. at 68.
22
   Id. at 70.
23
   Id.
24
   Id. at 71.
25
   Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3323 any party may appeal to the Superior Court within 10 days after
the Board’s decision becomes final. This is unlike 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), which requires the party
to appeal the Claims Deputy’s decision within 10 days of the date the decision was mailed.
                                                4
                                      Standard of Review

     11.The Court’s appellate review is limited to determining whether the Board’s

        findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free

        from legal error.26 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

        reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”27

        Discretionary decisions of the Board will be upheld unless the Board

        “exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored

        recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”28 The Court

        may not weigh evidence, decide questions of credibility, or engage in fact-

        finding upon review of the Board’s decision.29

                                          Analysis

     12. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), Adams had 10 days from the date of

        mailing to file an appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision. The decision was

        mailed on April 25, 2022, meaning Adams had until May 5, 2022, to file a

        timely appeal. The Appeals Referee held a hearing regarding the timing of

        the appeal. At the hearing Adams admitted that she did not send an email

26
   Toribio v. Peninsula United Methodist Homes, Inc., 2009 WL 153871, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan.
23, 2009).
27
   Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981).
28
   Nardi v. Lewis, 2000 WL 303147, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2000).
29
   Toribio, 2009 WL 153871, at *2.
                                              5
        requesting an appeal until May 22, 2022.30 Adams was then afforded the

        opportunity to present evidence or justification as to why her appeal was

        untimely. Adams failed to justify why the appeal was filed late. The Appeals

        Referee then dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Claims Deputy’s

        decision.

     13. After reviewing all of the available evidence and the record below, the

        Board exercised its discretion, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320(a), to not hear

        Adams’ appeal.31 There was no evidence that the Department made an error

        when mailing the Claims Deputy’s decision. In Delaware, if mail is correctly

        addressed, stamped and mailed a rebuttable presumption is created that the

        mail is received.32 The presumption may be rebutted if there is evidence that

        the mailing was never received.33 However, a lack of evidence that a mailing

        error occurred supports the presumption that the mail was properly

        addressed and received.34 Here, the Board found no evidence of an error on

        behalf of the Department.35 The burden then shifted to Adams who was

        unable to present any evidence to the contrary. In fact, Adams even

30
   Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 42.
31
   19 Del. C. § 3320(a) gives the Board the discretion to “affirm, modify, or reverse any decision
of an appeal tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted to the appeal tribunal. . .
.”
32
   Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr. 30, 2009), aff’d,
984 A.2d 124 (2009).
33
   Id.
34
   Id.
35
   Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 70.
                                                 6
        confirmed that her address of record, which is where the Department sent the

        decision, was her correct address.36 Since the Board concluded that there

        was no error made by the Department, Adams was presumed to have

        received the mailing.37 Due to the notice being sufficient, Adams’ due

        process rights were not violated.38

     14. The Board’s discretionary decision to decline further review of the appeal

        did not exceed the bounds of reason or produce an injustice. The Board has

        previously explained why it avoids exercising power over late appeals

        stating:

              in a situation where a party has filed a late appeal from an
              administrative decision, the Board is extremely cautious in assuming
              jurisdiction over the matter. It does so only in those cases where there
              has been some administrative error on the part of the Department of
              Labor which deprived the claimant of the opportunity to file a timely
              appeal, or in those cases where the interests of justice would not be
              served by inaction. Such cases have been few and far between . . . .39

        Again, the Board concluded Adams did not provide any evidence of why the

        appeal was filed late.40

36
   Id. at 28.
37
   Id. at 70.
38
   Id. Straley, 2009 WL 1228572, at *3.
39
   Funk v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).
40
   Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Tr. of Records at 70.
                                              7
                                       Conclusion

    15. The Court finds that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed

        the Appeals Referee’s decision and denied further review of the appeal.

        There was no evidence in the record that Adams was sent improper notice of

        the Claims Deputy’s decision including the appropriate timeframe to appeal.

        The Court also concludes that the Board’s discretionary decision to deny

        further review was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal

        error. Accordingly, the Board’s decision is AFFIRMED.

                   IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                             /s/ Mark H. Conner
                                             Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary

                                         8