Hall v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TIARA HALL )
Appellant, )
) C.A. No.: N14A-02-006-ALR
v. )
)
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEALS BOARD )
Appellee )
Submitted: November 20, 2014
Decided: February 19, 2015
On Appeal from the Decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
AFFIRMED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tiara Hall, self-represented.
Catherine Damavandi, Deputy Attorney General, for the Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board.
Rocanelli, J.
This is an appeal by Tiara Hall (“Claimant”) from three determinations of
the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“UIAB”), issued on April 10, 2013
in Case No. 50896679 and on June 6, 2013 in Case Nos. 60896679 and 60904782.
The UIAB found that Claimant had defrauded the Department of Labor
(“Department”) and obtained benefits to which she was not entitled. This appeal to
the Superior Court was filed by Claimant in an untimely manner. Accordingly, the
appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court finds that
Claimant’s appeal should also be dismissed on the merits because the UIAB’s
decision is free from legal error.
I. Procedural History
On April 10, 2013, the Department issued a Notice of Determination (Case
No. 50896679), finding that Claimant had earnings from her temporary job in
September and October of 2012, which Claimant did not report. During this time,
Claimant continued to receive unemployment and applied for extensions on her
unemployment insurance claim. The Department found Claimant was disqualified
for fraud, “effective with or for week ending September 22, 2012 until week
ending September 21, 2013.” The decision stated it would become final on April
20, 2013. The Department mailed the decision to Claimant at her address of
record. Claimant filed her appeal on September 4, 2013.
1
On June 6, 2013, the Department issued two Notices of Determination. In
the first June 6 notice (Case No. 60896679), the Department found Claimant was
overpaid $6,424.00 for twenty-two weeks from September 22, 2012 to February
16, 2012 due to a disqualification; accordingly, Claimant was fraudulently
collecting these unemployment benefits. In the second June 6 notice (Case No.
6090478), the Department determined an overpayment of benefits had been issued
in the amount of $768.00 for six weeks from February 23, 2013 to March 30, 2013
due to a disqualification and fraud. According to the decisions, any appeal by
Claimant was required to be filed by June 16, 2013. The Department mailed the
decision to Claimant at her address of record. Claimant filed her appeal on
September 4, 2013.
II. Jurisdictional Defect
Claimant’s appeal to the Superior Court was not filed within the deadline for
filing an appeal. Accordingly, there is a jurisdictional defect and Claimant’s
appeal to this Court therefore cannot be considered because the Court does not
have jurisdiction to hear a late-filed appeal. Appeals to the Superior Court from a
decision of the UIAB must be made ten (10) days after the decision of the UIAB
becomes final. 1
1
19 Del. Code 3323(a).
2
When a party fails to perfect an appeal within the period mandated by
statute, a jurisdictional defect is created that may not be excused in the absence of
unusual circumstances that are attributable to court personnel and are not
attributable to the appellant. 2 In this case no such unusual circumstances exist. The
appellate jurisdiction of a court cannot be invoked or properly exercised unless an
appeal is perfected within the time period fixed by law. 3 As Claimant’s appeal was
not perfected within the time period allowed by law, this court is without
jurisdiction to review the UIAB Decision.
III. Claimant Cannot Prevail on the Merits
Moreover, even if the appeal to the Superior Court were considered on its
merits, the UIAB Decision would be affirmed. The scope of review for any court
considering a decision of the UIAB is whether the UIAB abused its discretion.
Absent abuse of discretion the Court must uphold a decision of the UIAB. 4 An
appellate review of a decision by the UIAB is limited to determining whether the
UIAB’s findings and conclusions are free from legal error and are supported by
substantial evidence in the record.5 The Court is satisfied that there is substantial
evidence in the record sufficient to support the findings of the UIAB, and that such
findings are free from legal error. Moreover, the UIAB did not abuse its discretion,
2
Draper King cole v. Malave, 743 A.2d 672, 673 (Del. 1999).
3
Id.
4
Funk v. Unemp’t Ins. App. Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991); Dept. of Labor v. Medical
Placement Services, Inc., 457 A.2d 382, 383 (Del. Super. 1982).
5
See PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, *3 (Del. Super. June 18, 2008).
3
nor did it act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying Claimant’s further
appeals.
IV. Conclusion
The Court has examined the record and has determined that Claimant did not
file her appeal to the Superior Court within the time period allowed by law.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, if
Claimant’s appeal to the Court were considered on the merits, the appeal must be
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
_____________________________
Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
4