STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
u Docket No. AP-12-9.7 J A vV -Clt/Yl .. / S /)lo, 201 3 . I : RICHARD MARCELLA,
Petitioner
V. DECISION AND ORDER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, STATE OF M>.JNE Cumberland, s~, Cler:,·s Office
MAY 16 2013 Respondent. RECEIVED Appellant Richard Marcella (Marcella) appeals from the Maine Unemployment
Insurance Commission's (Commission) determination that denied him unemployment
benefits for the weeks of July 15 through September 1, 2012 because he failed to file
timely claims. Marcella argues the court should set aside the Commission's decision
because he made an error when he missed the check box on a form and did not know
the process to follow for filing claims.
BACKGROUND
Marcella became unemployed in June 2012 and filed for unemployment benefits
for the weeks ending June 30, July 7 and July 14, 2012. The claim for the week ending
July 14, 2012 was received and processed at the Maine Department of Labor claim
center on September 6, 2012. (R. at 34.) Marcella admitted there was a problem with the
way he filed one of his claims in that he failed to check off a box on a claim card for the
week of July 14 regarding whether he had any earnings. (R. at 34.) He did not file any
claims for the weeks ending July 21, 2012 through September 1, 2012 until he reopened
his claim on September 4, 2012, effective September 2, 2012. (R. at 6.) He stated that he
was living in Massachusetts trying to secure a position as a teacher and coach at a high
1 school and he forgot about filing the claim forms. (R. at 35-36.) He ultimately secured a
teaching position as a full-ti.me substitute in Massachusetts beginning September 4,
2012. (R. at 36.)
On September 4, 2012, Marcella spoke to a representative of the Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation who reopened Marcella's claim with an effective date of
September 2, 2012. (R. at 29.) Marcella also asked the claims representative on
September 4, 2012 to take his weekly claims over the telephone for the weeks ending
July 21 (R. at 13.), July 28 (R. at 14.), August 4 (R. at 15.), August 11 (R. at 16.), August 18
(R. at 17.), August 25 (R. at 18.) and September 1, 2012 (R. at 19.) (R. at 29.) A deputy
issued a decision finding that Marcella's claim for the week ending July 21 was not filed
until September 4, 2012, when he asked the claims representative to reopen his claim
and take his claim over the phone for that week and for each of the weeks ending July
28, 2012 through September 1, 2012. The deputy concluded that his claim was filed over
21 days late and was not reopened until an effective date of September 2, 2012;
therefore, the deputy denied benefits from July 15 through September 1, 2012. (R. at 12.)
Marcella appealed the denial of benefits to the Division of Administrative
Hearings and a telephonic hearing was held on September 27, 2012. (R. at 20, 25.) The
hearing officer issued a decision finding that the claimant did not file his claims for the
week in issue in a timely manner as required by the statute and rules. (R. at 6-8.)
Marcella appealed that decision to the Commission. (R. at 4-5.) The Commission
affirmed and adopted the hearing officer's decision. (R. at 4-5.) This Rule BOC appeal to
the Superior Court followed.
2 DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, this court
directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of
law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other
indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011). The court generally gives "great deference to
the [agency's] interpretation of its own regulations." Farley v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 624 A.2d 1233, 1234 (Me. 1993). This court will not disturb a decision of the
Commission "unless the record before the Commission compels a contrary result."
McPherson v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1998 ME 177, 16, 714 A. 2d 818, 820.
This court is not to "overrule findings of fact supported by substantial evidence,
defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support the resultant conclusion."' Lewiston Daily Sun v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 1999 ME 90, 17,733 A. 2d 344, 346 (quoting Crocker v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 450 A. 2d 469,471 (Me. 1982). The party seeking to overturn the decision of an
administrative agency bears the burden of proof. Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land
Use Regulation Comm'n, 450 A. 2d 475, 479 (Me. 1982). In this case, the Commission, in
affirming and adopting the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, properly
concluded that Marcella's failure to file a timely claim for the week of July 21 resulted in
loss of benefits for that week and all subsequent weeks until his claim was reopened on
September 4, 2012.
2. Failure to File Timely Claim
The applicable statute provides that an unemployed individual shall be eligible to
3 receive benefits with respect to any week only if he has made a claim for benefits. 26
M.R.S.A. § 1192(1). The statute further provides that an unemployed individual's week
of unemployment shall be deemed to commence only after his registration at an
employment office, except as the Commission may otherwise prescribe by regulation.
26 M.R.S.A. § 1043(17)(C).
Chapter 3 of the Rules Governing the Administration of the Employment
Security Law, 12-172 C:MR (Rules) provide that no claim shall be valid for any week
prior to the week in which the claimant has registered for work with a representative of
the Bureau. Rules, Chapter 3.l(C). The Rules further provide that a claimant's week of
unemployment and his registration for work shall be deemed to commence on a
Sunday of the calendar week in which the claimant registers for work and files a claim
with a representative of the Bureau. Rules, Chapter 3.l(G)(I).
Deadlines for the filing of an unemployment claim are also set forth in the Rules.
The deadlines are as follows:
To maintain eligibility for benefits, a claimant must report at the time and place assigned to him for reporting by a representative of the Bureau. If a claimant is filing by mail under provisions of subsection (B)(l), the envelope containing the claim card must bear a postmark date not later than fourteen (14) days from the week ending date of the claim week. A claimant may have an additional seven (7) days to file a claim if the claimant can show good cause for the later filing of that claim.
Rules, Chapter 3.l(D)(emphasis supplied). Thus, a claimant has a fourteen-day period
and an additional seven days for late filing if the claimant can show good cause.
The Rules make further provisions for filing claims by mail and what happens
when a claim is filed later than twenty-one days:
When a claimant is filing for a week of benefits by mail, the Bureau normally provides the claimant a weekly claim care when a benefit check or a message care for a prior week is issued.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
u Docket No. AP-12-9.7 J A vV -Clt/Yl .. / S /)lo, 201 3 . I : RICHARD MARCELLA,
Petitioner
V. DECISION AND ORDER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, STATE OF M>.JNE Cumberland, s~, Cler:,·s Office
MAY 16 2013 Respondent. RECEIVED Appellant Richard Marcella (Marcella) appeals from the Maine Unemployment
Insurance Commission's (Commission) determination that denied him unemployment
benefits for the weeks of July 15 through September 1, 2012 because he failed to file
timely claims. Marcella argues the court should set aside the Commission's decision
because he made an error when he missed the check box on a form and did not know
the process to follow for filing claims.
BACKGROUND
Marcella became unemployed in June 2012 and filed for unemployment benefits
for the weeks ending June 30, July 7 and July 14, 2012. The claim for the week ending
July 14, 2012 was received and processed at the Maine Department of Labor claim
center on September 6, 2012. (R. at 34.) Marcella admitted there was a problem with the
way he filed one of his claims in that he failed to check off a box on a claim card for the
week of July 14 regarding whether he had any earnings. (R. at 34.) He did not file any
claims for the weeks ending July 21, 2012 through September 1, 2012 until he reopened
his claim on September 4, 2012, effective September 2, 2012. (R. at 6.) He stated that he
was living in Massachusetts trying to secure a position as a teacher and coach at a high
1 school and he forgot about filing the claim forms. (R. at 35-36.) He ultimately secured a
teaching position as a full-ti.me substitute in Massachusetts beginning September 4,
2012. (R. at 36.)
On September 4, 2012, Marcella spoke to a representative of the Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation who reopened Marcella's claim with an effective date of
September 2, 2012. (R. at 29.) Marcella also asked the claims representative on
September 4, 2012 to take his weekly claims over the telephone for the weeks ending
July 21 (R. at 13.), July 28 (R. at 14.), August 4 (R. at 15.), August 11 (R. at 16.), August 18
(R. at 17.), August 25 (R. at 18.) and September 1, 2012 (R. at 19.) (R. at 29.) A deputy
issued a decision finding that Marcella's claim for the week ending July 21 was not filed
until September 4, 2012, when he asked the claims representative to reopen his claim
and take his claim over the phone for that week and for each of the weeks ending July
28, 2012 through September 1, 2012. The deputy concluded that his claim was filed over
21 days late and was not reopened until an effective date of September 2, 2012;
therefore, the deputy denied benefits from July 15 through September 1, 2012. (R. at 12.)
Marcella appealed the denial of benefits to the Division of Administrative
Hearings and a telephonic hearing was held on September 27, 2012. (R. at 20, 25.) The
hearing officer issued a decision finding that the claimant did not file his claims for the
week in issue in a timely manner as required by the statute and rules. (R. at 6-8.)
Marcella appealed that decision to the Commission. (R. at 4-5.) The Commission
affirmed and adopted the hearing officer's decision. (R. at 4-5.) This Rule BOC appeal to
the Superior Court followed.
2 DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
When acting as an appellate body pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, this court
directly examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for errors of
law, findings not supported "by substantial evidence on the whole record," or other
indications that the decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion." 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4)(C) (2011). The court generally gives "great deference to
the [agency's] interpretation of its own regulations." Farley v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 624 A.2d 1233, 1234 (Me. 1993). This court will not disturb a decision of the
Commission "unless the record before the Commission compels a contrary result."
McPherson v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1998 ME 177, 16, 714 A. 2d 818, 820.
This court is not to "overrule findings of fact supported by substantial evidence,
defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support the resultant conclusion."' Lewiston Daily Sun v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 1999 ME 90, 17,733 A. 2d 344, 346 (quoting Crocker v. Maine Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 450 A. 2d 469,471 (Me. 1982). The party seeking to overturn the decision of an
administrative agency bears the burden of proof. Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land
Use Regulation Comm'n, 450 A. 2d 475, 479 (Me. 1982). In this case, the Commission, in
affirming and adopting the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, properly
concluded that Marcella's failure to file a timely claim for the week of July 21 resulted in
loss of benefits for that week and all subsequent weeks until his claim was reopened on
September 4, 2012.
2. Failure to File Timely Claim
The applicable statute provides that an unemployed individual shall be eligible to
3 receive benefits with respect to any week only if he has made a claim for benefits. 26
M.R.S.A. § 1192(1). The statute further provides that an unemployed individual's week
of unemployment shall be deemed to commence only after his registration at an
employment office, except as the Commission may otherwise prescribe by regulation.
26 M.R.S.A. § 1043(17)(C).
Chapter 3 of the Rules Governing the Administration of the Employment
Security Law, 12-172 C:MR (Rules) provide that no claim shall be valid for any week
prior to the week in which the claimant has registered for work with a representative of
the Bureau. Rules, Chapter 3.l(C). The Rules further provide that a claimant's week of
unemployment and his registration for work shall be deemed to commence on a
Sunday of the calendar week in which the claimant registers for work and files a claim
with a representative of the Bureau. Rules, Chapter 3.l(G)(I).
Deadlines for the filing of an unemployment claim are also set forth in the Rules.
The deadlines are as follows:
To maintain eligibility for benefits, a claimant must report at the time and place assigned to him for reporting by a representative of the Bureau. If a claimant is filing by mail under provisions of subsection (B)(l), the envelope containing the claim card must bear a postmark date not later than fourteen (14) days from the week ending date of the claim week. A claimant may have an additional seven (7) days to file a claim if the claimant can show good cause for the later filing of that claim.
Rules, Chapter 3.l(D)(emphasis supplied). Thus, a claimant has a fourteen-day period
and an additional seven days for late filing if the claimant can show good cause.
The Rules make further provisions for filing claims by mail and what happens
when a claim is filed later than twenty-one days:
When a claimant is filing for a week of benefits by mail, the Bureau normally provides the claimant a weekly claim care when a benefit check or a message care for a prior week is issued. If not claim is received or postmarked within either the fourteen (14) day period or the additional seven (7) day period allowed for good cause, an initial, additional initial or reopened claim must be filed to
4 begin a new claim series. Benefits shall not be allowed for the period starting with the week for which the claim card was filed later than fourteen (14) days after the week ending date of that claim, or an additional seven (7) days if good cause was found, and ending with the week immediately preceding the week during which the initial, additional initial or reopened claim was filed.
Rules, Chapter 3.l(D).
In order to open a "claim series" and establish the right to file claims to receive
benefits, a claimant must register for work and file a claim with the Bureau. After
establishing the initial claim, the claimant must file weekly claims for every week that
he expects to receive benefits. If a claimant fails to file a claim card within fourteen days
of the claim for which he is claiming benefits, his claim will be denied. The claimant is
given an additional seven days ti.me to file a claim so long as he is able to show "good
cause" for the late filing of the claim card. There is no provision in the statute or the
Rules for filing of a claim more than twenty-one days after the week for which the claim
is made.
Marcella failed to file a claim for July 21, 2012, until September 4, 2012, after the
twenty-one day deadline. He did not file any of his claims for the weeks between July
21 and September 1, 2012 until September 4, 2012. The hearing officer and the
Commission properly concluded that the claimant's failure to file the July 21, 2012 claim
had the effect of rendering his unemployment case inactive, triggering the requirement
to reopen his claim. When he called the Bureau on September 4, 2012, he was allowed
to reactivate his unemployment case, and he was eligible to begin filing claims for
benefits again. But, his failure to file his July 21 claim within twenty-one days meant
that the Bureau could not accept his claims for that week or any subsequent week until
he filed a reopened claim to begin a new claim series. See Rules, Chapter 3.l(D).
Marcella claims that his failure to file his claims in a timely fashion was due in
part to his lack of familiarity with the unemployment system and his busy life looking
5 for work during this ti.me. (R. at 5, 34-36.) However, the Maine Law Court has held the
timely filing of weekly claims is one of "numerous eligibility conditions set forth in
Section 1192" of the statute and must be followed by claimants who expect to receive
benefits. McKenzie v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 453 A. 2d 505, 512 (Me.
1982). The Law Court concluded in McKenzie that "[t]he claimant of unemployment
compensation benefits must be held to have knowledge of the requirements of the Act
and legally adopted regulations of the Commission and must suffer such loss as may
have arisen from his failure to comply with the plain mandatory terms of the statutory
program." Id. at 509.
Marcella states that when he received on August 8 a note from the Bureau stating
that he did not answer all of the questions of his claim form for the week of July 14,
2012. According to him, he immediately called and was advised he needed to correct
the form and resend, which he states he did on that day. Marcella then waited to hear
that he did so correctly and the claim would be paid. He never received a weekly form,
which was what had happened each week before his error. (R. at 5.) Marcella waited for
three weeks to hear from the Bureau. Finally, on September 4, 2012, he called the
Bureau again and he learned that he had to reopen the claim because of the late ti.me
frames. (R. at 5.) He argues that all he did was miss a check mark in a box and he
should not be penalized for not knowing the procedures for filing claims.
In McKenzie, the claimant argued that his failure to file claims was because he
was relying on the Bureau's initial determination that he was not eligible and assumed
it was a waste for him to file claims. McKenzie, 453 A. 2d at 511. The Law Court
disagreed and emphasized that there was no evidence of "wrongful conduct on the part
of the administrative authorities" that would support a claim that the claimant was
induced not to file claims. Id. at 512. "McKenzie had the duty fairly imposed on him by
6 the statute to take the minimal step of contacting the local office for review and filing
weekly claims until personally satisfied that no Commission error was involved." Id. at
513. So to,
Marcella had a duty to take the minimal step of contacting the local office for
review and filing weekly claims until he was satisfied that his weekly claim form had
been properly filed and received. He was admittedly busy trying to secure a job in
Massachusetts, but he "kind of forgot about it and ... filed it late." (R. at 35.) Marcella
was aware there was a problem with claim but he failed to follow up with the Bureau,
which cannot be attributed to Bureau error. Chapter 3 of the Rules states that failure on
the claimant's part to file a claim card timely "and thus not receive subsequent claim
cards timely, does not constitute administrative error." Rules, Chapter 3.1.D. Like
McKenzie, Marcella must suffer the consequences of failing to file timely claims for the weeks in question.
The claimant's failure to file timely claim for the weeks of July 21, 201, resulted in
the loss of benefits for the weeks of July 15, 2012 through September 1, 2012. This
conclusion by the Commission, in affirming and adopting the decision of the
Administrative Hearing Officer, is supported by competent evidence and is correct as a
matter of law.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Mr. Marcella's appeal is denied and the Court affirms Commission
Decision No. 12-C-08622.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this
Decision and Order by reference in the docket.
Dated: May 15, 2013 o ce A. Wheeler ustice, Superior Court