Davis v. Walmart and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: August 4, 2023
• Docket: S23A-04-002 CAK
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WALTER DAVIS JR., : : C.A. No. S23A-04-002 CAK Appellant, : : v. : : WALMART : : and : : UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE : APPEAL BOARD, : : Appellees. :

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: August 4, 2023

On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

AFFIRMED

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Walter Davis, Jr., pro se, 11 Garden Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947, Appellant.

Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

KARSNITZ, R.J.

1 I. INTRODUCTION

Walter Davis, Jr., pro se (“Appellant”), has requested that I review the

decision of the Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “Board”)

denying his request for the Board to hear his appeal.1 For the reasons discussed

below, I decline to review the decision of the Board, and I affirm that decision.

II. FACTS

Appellant appealed the determination of the Claims Deputy (the “Claims

Deputy Determination”) to the Referee, who concluded he had failed to file a timely

appeal from the Claims Deputy Determination.2 Appellant then appealed the

Referee’s decision to the Board. After reviewing the record below, the Board found

that he failed to submit his appeal within the 10-day deadline.3 This statutory time

limit is jurisdictional. Essentially, Appellant argues that the notices of the various

appealed decisions (the Claims Deputy Determination and the Referee’s decision)

were not timely delivered to his correct address.

1 19 Del. C. § 3323(a). 2 Appellant had until November 14, 2022 to appeal the Claims Deputy Determination. He submitted his written appeal on November 29, 2022. 3 19 Del. C. § 3318(c) states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties shall be duly notified of the [Referee’s] decision…which shall be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision [a] further appeal is initiated.” (emphasis added)

2 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appellate review, “the findings of [the Board] as to the facts, if supported

by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of

the Court shall be confined to questions of law.”4 Therefore, my role on appeal is to

determine whether the Board's findings are “supported by substantial evidence and

free from legal error.”5 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”6 Moreover, I

may only consider the record before me.7 In reviewing the record for substantial

evidence, I consider the record in “the light most favorable to the party prevailing

below.”8

I will not disturb the Board's determination absent an abuse of discretion by

the Board.9 The Court will find an abuse of discretion only if “the Board ‘acts

arbitrarily or capriciously’ or ‘exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the

4 19 Del. C. § 3323; Coleman v. Dep't of Labor, 288 A.2d 285, 287 (Del.Super.1972) (“[T]he credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are for the Board to determine.”). 5 Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (Del.Super.1979); Crews v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2011 WL 2083880, at *2 (Del. Super. May 11, 2011). 6 Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del.1994). 7 Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (Del.1976). 8 Steppi v. Conti Elec., 2010 WL 718012, at *3, 991 A.2d 19 (Table) (Del. Mar. 16, 2010); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Guy, 1991 WL 190491, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 16, 1991). 9 Crews, 2011 WL 2083880, at *2; see also Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del.1991) (“The scope of review for any court considering an action of the Board is whether the Board abused its discretion.”).

3 circumstances and has ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce

injustice.’ ”10

IV. ANALYSIS

Appellant is challenging the Board’s discretionary decision to deny his

request for the Board to review his case. The Board has the discretion to decide

whether to hear a particular case on appeal.11 Additionally, “the Board has broad

discretion when deciding whether to review the record regarding the failure to file a

timely appeal.”12 Accordingly, “the Court must not disturb a discretionary decision

of the Board unless the Court finds that it was based on clearly unreasonable or

capricious grounds.”13

I do not think the Board abused its discretion. A Referee’s decision becomes

final unless a party files an appeal request with the Board within 10 days from the

date that the Referee’s decision is mailed to the claimant’s address of record with

the Department of Labor (the “Department”).14 Appellant failed to submit his appeal

to the Board by this deadline. The Board denied Appellant’s appeal because it did

not find any evidence that he filed his appeal request with the Board by the statutory

10 Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *2 (Del.Super.2009) (citations omitted). 11 Pumphrey v. Allen Harim Foods, 2019 WL 4034292, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 26, 2019) (citations omitted). 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. (citing 19 Del. C. § 3318(c)).

4 deadline. Nor did the Board find any error in the underlying Referee’s decision. After

thoroughly reviewing the record, the Board did not find any other reason warranting

the extraordinary action of exercising its discretion to grant Appellant’s untimely

appeal.15

After reviewing the record and Appellant’s appeal, the Board did not find that

Appellant had shown sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant taking up his

appeal. Appellant failed to timely appeal the initial Claims Deputy Determination

and alleged that he had mail delivery problems but failed to provide any

documentation of such problems, nor did he inform the United State Postal Service

of his problems. He subsequently failed to file a timely appeal with the Board. There

is no evidence in record of Departmental error that may have prevented Appellant

from filing a timely appeal of the Referee’s decision.16 Finding no evidence of a

timely appeal request nor any error in the underlying Referee’s decision, the Board

declined to exercise its discretion to accept the appeal.17

15 In severe circumstances, the Board may itself exercise its discretion under 19 Del. C. § 3320 to accept a request for appeal. Such cases are rare, and the Board is extremely cautious in exerting its discretion in such cases. In those rare cases, typically there is a showing of some administrative error on the part of the Department preventing a timely appeal. The Board may find that, under the totality of the circumstances, the interests of justice warrant action by the Board. In my view, this is not one of those cases. 16 See Berry v. Mayor and Council of Middletown & Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 2021 WL 839081 (Del. Super. Mar. 4, 2021) (holding that 19 Del. C. § 3318(c) “is jurisdictional in nature and failure to comply with this statutory requirement will prohibit the Board from accepting an appeal.”) 17 See Funk v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991) (holding that, although the Board has the authority to act sua sponte beyond the 10-day appeal period to

5 V. CONCLUSION

In my view, the Board’s decision is supported by the record and is free from

legal error.18 For the reasons discussed above, the Board’s decision affirming the

Appeals Referee and denying further review is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz

cc: Prothonotary Walter Davis Jr. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Walmart

consider a case where no valid appeal has been filed by the parties, (1) the decision of Board not to exercise such authority was not abuse of discretion, and (2) strict application of the statutory time limits did not violate claimant's due process rights. 18 Smith v. Hertrich’s, 2012 WL 1408023, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 9, 2012).