Kemer v. ICAO ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0859 Kemer v ICAO 10-03-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0859 </div>
<div>Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado </div>
<div>DD No. 4445-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ararso Kemer, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Petitioner, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and <span>Express Services </span>
</div>
<div>Inc, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Respondents<span>. </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDER AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division IV </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>KUHN</span> </div>
<div>Harris and <span>Yun, JJ., concur</span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 3, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ararso Kemer, Pro Se </div>
<div> </div>
<div>No Appearance for Respondents </div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>In this unemployment benefits case, claimant, Ararso Kemer,<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Off<span></span>ice </div>
<div>(Panel) dismissing as untimely his request for a new hearing. <span></span> We </div>
<div>affirm the Panel’s order.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Kemer worked for Express Employment Professionals, <span></span>a </span>
</div>
<div>temporary staffing agency, and performed various temporary </div>
<div>assignments for a little over a year. On the first day of his <span></span>last </div>
<div>assignment, Kemer’s supervisor criticized Kemer’s personal hygien<span></span>e. </div>
<div>Kemer left the job site for th<span>at</span> assignment and did not <span></span>return.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>When Kemer applied for unemployment benefits, a deputy </span>
</div>
<div>with the Division of Unemployment Insurance approved his </div>
<div>application. However, Express appealed that decision t<span></span>o a hearing </div>
<div>officer for the Division. Express attended the hearing on appeal, </div>
<div>but Kemer did not. After reviewing Express’s eviden<span></span>ce regarding the </div>
<div>reason for Kemer’s job separation, the hearing officer conclu<span></span>ded </div>
<div>that Kemer quit due to dissatisfaction with his working <span></span>conditions </div>
<div>(which the hearing officer found were not objectively unsatisfa<span></span>ctory), </div>
<div>and, as a result, Kemer was disqualified from receiv<span></span>ing benefits </div>
<div>under section 8-<span>73</span>-108(5)(e)(I), C.R.S. 2024.<span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>The hearing officer mailed the decision to Kemer on March 8,<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>2024. The decision included an advisement regarding Kemer<span></span>’s right </div>
<div>to appeal. Specifically, it explained that Kemer had the right <span></span>to </div>
<div>request a new hearing, so long as the Panel received such request </div>
<div>within twenty days of the date the decision was mailed <span>—</span> in other </div>
<div>words, by March 28, 2024. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>Kemer submitted a request for a new hearing on April 19, </span>
</div>
<div>2024 <span>—</span> twenty-two days past the deadline. On April 22, <span></span>staff for </div>
<div>the Panel emailed Kemer, asking why he failed to timely f<span></span>ile. </div>
<div>Instead of directly responding to the email, Kemer filed another </div>
<div>request for a new hearing on April 30, explaining his<span></span> failure to </div>
<div>appear for the first hearing and addressing the merits of the <span></span>hearing </div>
<div>officer’s decision. However, Kemer’s filing did not explain why <span></span>he </div>
<div>failed to meet the March 28, 2024, deadline to request a new </div>
<div>hearing.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The Panel found that Kemer had not shown good cause to </span>
</div>
<div>permit a late appeal and dismissed his request for a new hearing as </div>
<div>untimely.<span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Legal Principles and Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> <span>The Panel must receive a claimant’s request for a new hearing </span></span>
</div>
<div>within twenty calendar days after notification of the hearing off<span></span>icer’s </div>
<div>decision. Dep’t of Lab. &amp; Emp. Reg. 11.2.13.2, 7 Code C<span></span>olo. Regs. </div>
<div>1101-2. The Panel may review an untimely request for a new </div>
<div>hearing only upon finding that good cause excuses the late filin<span></span>g. </div>
<div>Id. <span>The Panel may only make such a finding if the <span>“request for new </span></span>
</div>
<div>hearing contains a statement of the reasons for which the <span></span>party </div>
<div>failed to act in a timely manner or if information within the <span></span>appeal </div>
<div>file supports a determination of good cause.”<span> </span>Dep’t of Lab. &amp; Em<span></span>p. </div>
<div>Reg. 12.1.3.3, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-<span>2.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>In determining whether good cause exists, the Panel consi<span></span>ders </span>
</div>
<div>(1) <span>“whether the party acted in the manner that a reason<span></span>ably </span>
</div>
<div>prudent individual would have acted under the same or si<span></span>milar </div>
<div>circumstances”; (2) whether the Division committed an </div>
<div>“administrative error”; (3) whether the claimant “exercised cont<span></span>rol </div>
<div>over the untimely action”; (4) the length of delay in filing;<span></span> </div>
<div>(5) <span>whether the delay prejudiced “any other interested party”; <span></span>and </span>
</div>
<div>(6) <span>“whether denying good cause would lead to a result t<span></span>hat is </span>
</div>
<div>inconsistent <span>with the law.” Dep’t of Lab. &amp; Emp. Reg. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>12.1.8, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2. Generally, the Panel has </div>
<div>discretion to weigh those factors, and we will not dist<span></span>urb its ruling </div>
<div>absent an abuse of that discretion.<span> </span><span>See Nguyen v. Indus. Clai<span></span>m </span>
</div>
<div>Appeals Off.<span>, 174 P.3d 847, 848-49 (Colo. App. 2007). </span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Because Kemer is pro se, we broadly construe his pleadings to </span>
</div>
<div>ensure that he is not denied review because of his inability to </div>
<div>articulate his argument like a lawyer. <span>See Johnson v. McGrat<span></span>h<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>2024 COA 5, ¶ 10. However, we may not “act as an <span></span>advocate for a </div>
<div>pro se litigant.” <span>Id.<span> </span></span><span>Kemer appears to argue that the hearing <span></span>officer </span>
</div>
<div>erred by finding that he quit his job because, according to Keme<span></span>r, </div>
<div>his supervisor terminated him. However, that issue is not pr<span></span>operly </div>
<div>before us because the Panel never addressed it. <span>S<span>ee </span></span>§ 8-<span>74</span>-107 </div>
<div>(granting appellate court jurisdiction to review only the Panel<span></span>’s </div>
<div>decision); <span>see People in Interest of M.B.</span>, 2020 COA 13, ¶ 14 </div>
<div>(appellate courts generally review only matters ruled on in t<span></span>he order </div>
<div>appealed from).<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>We may only review what the Panel addressed <span>—</span> whether good </span>
</div>
<div>cause existed to accept Kemer’s late request for a new <span></span>hearing. <span>Id.</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>However, Kemer is silent on that issue. He does not <span></span>argue that the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>Panel acted in excess of its powers, legally erred, or abuse<span></span>d its </div>
<div>discretion. Nor does he otherwise explain why the P<span></span>anel’s order </div>
<div>dismissing his late request for a second hearing is incorrect. <span></span> </div>
<div>Consequently, we will not disturb the Panel’s order on review<span>. </span><span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Middlemist v. BDO Seidman, LLP<span>, 958 P.2d 486, 495 (C<span></span>olo. App. </span>
</div>
<div>1997) (noting appellant’s obligation to identify specific erro<span></span>rs and </div>
<div>legal authorities supporting reversal). </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> <span>The Panel’s order is affirmed.<span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE YUN concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>