Court Opinion

ID: 9562788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:33:51.594672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:31.756197
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the trial court by adopting the same reasoning employed by the trial judge when he said in his opinion letter:
“The case presents a clear factual dispute: A decision of the appeals examiner for the Employment Security Commission was reached adversely to the Appellant. ‘The Transmittal of Decision’ notice was dated September 14, 1984. The notice contained a recital that the ‘Date *202Notice Mailed’ was September 14, 1984. The appeals examiner attested that the date of mailing was, in fact, September 14, 1984. Appellant claims he did not receive ‘notice’ until October 10, 1984. He produces an envelope containing a notice which bears a postmark of October 5, 1984. He claims that this mailing constituted his first notice of the adverse decision. He filed his Notice of Appeal on October 11, 1984, which was within the 10 day period from his notice of the adverse decision, thus Appellant claims he is timely.
“The Court will resolve the factual dispute in this case in favor of the Appellant because of the importance of affording the Appellant a decision by the highest level of the Employment Security Commission on the merits. The law clearly favors resolution of disputes on the merits. * * * ”
I would have remanded to the Employment Security Commission for reinstitution of the internal-appeals process at the administrative level.