Court Opinion

ID: 9925722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 21:02:36.115761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:29.660596
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ARTHUR GREEN,                                   )
                                                )
                Appellant,                      )
                                                )
                                                )
                      v.                        )    C.A. No. N23A-03-002 CEB
                                                )
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE                          )
APPEAL BOARD                                    )
                                                )
                Appellee.                       )

                               Submitted: October 20, 2023
                                  Decided: January 22, 2024

                                         ORDER

                               Appeal from a Decision of the
                           Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
                                      AFFIRMED.

        This 22nd day of January 2024, upon appeal from the Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”), the parties’ briefs, and the record below, it

appears that:

         1.     On July 10, 2022, Green filed a claim for unemployment insurance

benefits with the Department of Labor (“DOL”).1 The Senior Claims Deputy found

1
    Notice of Determination, R18.
                                            1
Green ineligible for benefits because he failed to show “good cause”2 as defined by

19 Del. C. § 3314(1) for leaving his employment.3 The Senior Claims Deputy’s

Notice of Determination (“NOD”) was mailed to Green on November 9, 2022.4

Green timely appealed the Senior Claims Deputy’s NOD on November 15, 2022.5

         2.     On November 22, 2022, the Appeals Referee (“Referee”) issued a

    Notice of Hearing, notifying Green that a hearing would be held on December 5,

    2022, at 1:30 PM.6 The Notice of Hearing advised Green that the hearing would be

    conducted by telephone and provided the telephone number for attending.7

         3.     On December 5, 2022, Green failed to appear for the hearing before the

    Referee.8 The Referee dismissed Green’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the

    Claims Deputy.9 The Referee held that “Despite being duly noticed, and the

    Referee waiting 15 minutes, the Claimant failed to call in to prosecute the case.”10

    The Referee’s Decision was mailed to Green on December 5, 2022.11 The Referee’s

    Decision advised Green that under 19 Del. C. § 3318, he could appeal the decision

2
  Id.
3
  Id.; see 19 Del. C. § 3314(1).
4
  Notice of Determination, R18.
5
  Green Notice to Appeal to Referee, R16.
6
  Notice of Referee’s Hearing, R15.
7
  Id.
8
  Notice of Referee’s Decision, R13.
9
  Id.
10
   Id.
11
   Id.
                                        2
 within ten days. Green had until December 15 to file his appeal. Green did file an

 appeal, but did so on December 29, 2022.12 He thus missed one hearing altogether

 and requested the second one after his time for doing so had lapsed.

      4.     On January 18, 2023, the Board held a Review Hearing and affirmed

 the Referee’s Decision, denying Green’s application for further review.13 The

 Board found “no evidence of Departmental error that prevented Claimant from

 filing a timely appeal of the Referee’s Decision.”14 The Board further held that

 Green failed to provide “any evidence of any severe circumstances sufficient to

 justify the exercise of the Board’s discretion to hear the appeal in the interests of

 justice.”15 Finding no error in the Referee’s Decision or evidence of circumstances

 necessitating the Board to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice, the Board

 declined to accept Green’s appeal for further review.16 Green then timely appealed

 to the Superior Court.17

       5.    The Superior Court plays a limited role in reviewing a decision on

 appeal from the Board. The Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether

12
   Green Appeal Request Notification to Board, R10.
13
   Notice of Board Decision, R5-6.
14
   Id. at 6.
15
   Id.
16
   Id. at 5-6.
17
   Green Notice of Appeal to Superior Ct., R1-4; see also Notice of Appeal, Trans.
ID 69274207 (Mar. 6, 2023).

                                            3
 the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal

 error.18 “‘Substantial evidence’ means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”19 The Court will not address

 issues of credibility or independently weigh the evidence presented to the Board.20

 Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.21 The Board’s discretionary rulings are

 reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 The Board has abused its discretion only when

 its decision “exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has

 ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”23

      6.     On the relevant dates, 19 Del. C. § 3318(c), a claimant had ten days

 from the date of mailing to appeal a decision of an appeals tribunal.24 The time for

18
   Gen. Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 689 (Del. 1960); Tsakiris v. J.P.
Morgan, 2017 WL 1532610, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 26, 2017); Arrants v. Home
Depot, 65 A.3d 601, 604-05 (Del. 2013); Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v Duncan,
337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975).
19
   Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del.
1994) (citing Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981)).
20
   Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Div. of Unemployment Ins., 803 A.2d 931, 937
(Del. 2002) (“Questions of credibility are exclusively within the province of the
Board which heard the evidence. As an appellate court, it [is] not within the province
of the Superior Court to weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility or
make its own factual findings.”).
21
   LeVan v. Indep. Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929, 932 (Del. 2007).
22
   Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).
23
   McIntyre v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2008 WL 1886342, at *1 (Del. Super.
Apr. 29, 2008) aff’d, 962 A.2d 917 (Del. 2008) (TABLE) (quoting Nardi v. Lewis,
2000 WL 303147, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2000).
24
   Effective October 1, 2023, 19 Del. C. § 3318(c) was amended to give claimants
15 days to file an appeal. See Del. H.B. 176, 152d Gen. Assem. § 3318 (2023).
                                         4
 appealing a Referee’s decision “is an express statutory condition of jurisdiction that

 is both mandatory and dispositive.”25         Unless the delay is caused by an

 administrative error, a claimant’s failure to meet the statutory deadline will

 jurisdictionally bar the Board from accepting appellate review.26

      7.     Green argues that the Board improperly denied his appeal request.27

 Green claims that he followed proper procedures and states “On December 15, 2022

 [u]nemployment received the papers.”28 However, the Board found that Green’s

 appeal request was not filed until December 29, 2022, therefore making it untimely.

 The Court must defer to the Board’s determination. Green has not provided any

 evidence to support his contention that his appeal request was timely filed. Further,

 there is no evidence to suggest an error or wrongdoing occurred. Accordingly, the

 Court finds there was substantial evidence that Green did not file his appeal to the

 Board in a timely manner.

      8.     Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320(a), the Board has broad discretion to

 consider an appeal and may, “on its own motion, affirm, modify, or reverse any

 decision of an appeal tribunal.”29 However, in regard to “untimely appeals, such

25
   Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super. May 16, 2003).
26
   Chrysler Corp v. Dillon, 327 A.2d 604, 605 (Del. 1974); Hartman v.
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2004 WL 772067, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 5, 2004).
27
   Green’s Reply Br., Trans. ID 71112169 (Oct. 17, 2023).
28
   Id.
29
   19 Del. C. § 3320(a).
                                        5
 discretion is exercised rarely and primarily in cases of administrative error that has

 the effect of depriving a claimant the opportunity to file a timely appeal.”30

       9.     In this case, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear Green’s

 appeal on the merits because Green failed to provide “any evidence of any severe

 circumstances sufficient to justify the exercise of the Board’s discretion to hear the

 appeal in the interests of justice.”31

      10.     The Court finds that the Board’s decision to affirm the Referee’s

 decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. The Court

 also finds that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it declined to accept the

 appeal for review.

       Therefore, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is

AFFIRMED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                /s/ Charles E. Butler
                                                Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

30
   Hefley v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2010 WL 376898, at *2 (Del. Jan. 26,
2010) (citing Funk, 591 A.2d at 225 (emphasis added)).
31
   Notice of Board Decision, R6.
                                       6