Alcenord v. Perdue Farms

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
l The Circlc. Suitc 2
E. SCOTT BRADLEY
JUDGE GEORGETOWN. DE 19947
October 29, 2018
g l‘
3 m"
Ronald Alcenord o §§
209 E.e"‘street °-"~ mg
Blades,DE19973 '_},’ §§
n §§
RE: RonaldA/cenord v. Perdue Farms ny 513
C.A.No.slsA-04-001ESB 5 °<_§§
Dear Mr. Alcenord:
This is my decision on your appeal of the Unemployment lnsurance Appeal
Board’s denial of your application for further review of the Claim Deputy’s denial of
your claim for unemployment benefits You were employed by Perdue Farms as a
laborer for approximately three years and four months until you were terminated on
December 16, 2017. You were terminated for violating the company’s lockout/tagout
policy. You filed a claim for unemployment benefits on December 24, 2017. The
Claims Deputy determined that Perdue Farms met its burden of proving that you were
discharged for “just cause” in a written decision dated .lanuary 18, 2018. You had 10
days to tile an appeal. You received the Claims Deputy’s written decision, but did
not file an appeal of it until February 6, 2018. The Appeals Referee ruled that the
Claims Deputy’s decision was final and binding on you because you failed to file a
timely appeal. The Board affirmed the Appeals Referee’s decision, reasoning that the
Claims Deputy’s determination that you were ineligible for unemployment benefits
had become final and that there was no evidence of error on the part of the
Department of Labor that might have delayed your appeal of that determination. You
then filed an appeal with this Court.
STANDARD OF REV|EW
The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited
appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. The Court must
determine whether the Board’s findings and conclusions are free from legal error and
supported by substantial evidence in the record.l Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.2 The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions
ofcredibility, or make its own factual findings3 lt merely determines if``the evidence
is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings." Absent an error of law,
' Ur)em/)lr)ymenl ln.s'w'tlm'e A])peal Board \»'. Marlin. 431 A.Zd 1265`` 1266 (Del. 1981 ).
" ()cean])orr Ind. \‘. Wilmingmn Ste\'edores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Barlisra v.
(``hry.s~ler (``r)rp.. 517 A.Zd 295. 297 (Del.1986). app. di.s'm.. 515 A.Zd 397 (Del. 1986)(TABLE).
3 .]()hn.\'()n \', ('h)'y.\'ler (,``1)rp.. 213 A.2d 64. 66 (Del. 1965).
* 29 De/.C. § 10142140 A.2d 137(1)0|. Super. 1<)58).
(’ Scc lively tx ])m‘cr Wipe,\' ( '(). and l.»’nem})[()ymcn! ln.s'w‘cmc'c' /1])/)@¢1/ B()ard. 2003 Wl.
21213415 (Del. Super. Ct. l\/lay l(). 2003) and Wi``lt\‘r)n v. }"ram‘i.s'ccm ('urc (``L'H/w‘. 2006 Wli
1134779 (Del. Super. (.``t. April 18. 2006).
710 De/.(``A §3318(b).
Deputy’s determination will become final and § 33 1 8(b) will jurisdictionally bar the
l.”8 You acknowledged that you received the Claims
claim from further appea
Deputy’s decision in the mail in a timely manner. You acknowledged that you read
the decision of the Claims Deputy. You stated that you did not see the part of the
decision indicating the time frame for an appeal. Your delay in filing the appeal was
due solely to your inaction. Thus. the Board``s finding that you did not file a timely
appeal of the Claims Deputy’s decision on eligibility is in accordance with the
applicable law and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION
The Unemployment lnsurance Appeal Board’s decision is AFFlRMED.
lT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
///M
E. Scott Bradley
ESB:tll
cc: Prothonotary’s Office
Counsel of Record
x Ha)'lmcm \'. Unemployment lnsuranc'e Appeal Board. 2004 WL 772067. at *2 (Del.
Super. Ct. April 5. 2004).