Williams v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 23, 2010
• Docket: CUMap-09-050
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERI0l~ COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-09-050 eft r - ," ,:,,,.~ ) 'J

Gabriel B. Williams,

Appellant,

v. ORDER

STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, 55, Clerk's Office Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, .JUN ~:3 2010 Respondent RECEIVED

This matter comes before the court on Peti tioner, Gabriel B. Williams'

appeal of final agency action pursuant to 26 M.R.S. § 1194(8), 5 M.RS. §§ 11001­

11008, and M.1\.. Civ. P. 80C. Mr. Williams has appealed a decision by the Maine

Unemployment Insurance Commission denying his appeal of a denial of benefits

and his motion to reconsider that dismissal.

FACTUAL BACKGI~OUND

Petitioner worked as a food assembler at a plant in Portland for three

days, from January 6 through January 8, 2009. Petitioner did not call in or show

up for his sch.eduled work shift on January 9,2009. The employment agency that

employed him had no further word from Petitioner after that date. Petitioner

applied for and was denied unemployment benefits in a decision dated May 19,

2009 (the "deputy decision"). The deputy decision found that Petitioner had left

work voluntarily without good cause for leaving. At the bottom of the deputy

decision, it stated: "This decision becomes final unless appealed on or before

06/03/09. An additional 15 days to appeal may be allowed for good cause."

1 Petitioner appealed that decision to the Division of Admirustrative

Hearings. The appeal notice is date-stamped as received by the Division of

Administrative Hearings on June 11,2009.

The Division of Administrative Hearings sent a notice of hearing to

Petitioner on June 22, 2009, setting a hearing for July 20, 2009. I The notice listed

a telephone number for Petitioner. On July 15, 2009, Petitioner called the

Division of Admirustrative Hearings and left a new telephone number for where

he could be reached.

On July 20, 2009, the hearing officer called the number provided by

Petitioner. A man answered the phone and explained that Petitioner had called

him to explain that he was in the Cumberland County Jail and was hoping that

the hearing officer could reschedule the hearing. The representative of the

employer was on the phone and ready to participate. The hearing officer

dismissed Petitioner's appeal on the record because of his failure to appear. The

hearing officer issued a written decision to that effect.

The Petitioner appealed the decision on July 24, 2009, explaining that he

had been arrested on the date of the hearing and thus was unable to appear. The

Division of Admirustrative Hearings issued a notice of hearing on August 3,

2009, setting a hearing for September I, 2009. On the date and time listed in the

notice, the hearing officer placed a call to the claimant's number. The man who

answered the phone explained that Petitioner was not there at that time. This

person explained that Petitioner had told him that his hearing was on

Wednesday, which was two days later. The hearing officer contacted the

I Although Petitioner's appeal was not filed within the deadline, under 26 M.R.S. §

1194(2), "the period within which an appeal may be filed may be extended, for a period not to exceed an additional 15 calendar days, for good cause shown." Id. (emphasis added).

2 employer, who was ready to participate in the hearing and then dismissed the

appeal on the record because Petitioner failed to appear. The hearing officer

issued a decision to that effect on September 3, 2009.

On September 17, 2009, Petitioner filed an appeal with the Commission.

In a decision dated October 15, 2009, the Commission affirmed and adopted the

decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, dismissing the appeal. This

decision was mailed to a post office box that was incorrect. On November 3,

2009, Petitioner called to request a copy of the decision, which was reissued on

November 5, 2009. On November 6, 2009, the claimant submitted a request for

reconsideration. In a decision dated December 24, 2009, the Commission denied

Petitioner's request for reconsideration on the grounds that it had been untimely

filed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed this appeal.

In connection with Petitioner's appeal to this court, and consistent with

the provisions of M.R. Civ. P. SOC, an oral argument was scheduled for June 2,

2010. Notice of the oral argument was sent to Petitioner on May 6, 2010.

Additionally, according to the clerk Petitioner came to the clerk's office

approximately two weeks before the scheduled hearing, confirmed that his

mailing address is the same address to which the notice was sent, and was given

an additional copy of the notice. Petitioner failed to appear at the oral argument.

DECISION

In light of the fact that Petitioner, as the appellant, bears the burden of

proof in this case, and of the fact that Petitioner has failed to identify any point of

error, include any legal argument in his brief to support his appeal, or appear for

the oral argument in this court the court denies Petitioner's appeal and affirms

the decision of the Commission. See Beauchene v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,

3 2009 ME 24, ~ II, 965 A.2d 866, 870; and Seider v. Ed. oj' Exmn'rs (d' P.\ycholoKisls,

2000 ME 206, ~ 8, 762 A.2d 551,555. 5,'ee also M.R. Civ. P. 80C(h) (explaining that the

failure to 1ile a brief in support of an appeal may result in dismissal for want of . . 2 proseclItlon).

The entry is:

The Decision of the Commission is here y

2 Although Petitioner did file a two-page handwritten brief in this case, his brief fails to articulate any point of error or make any legal argument upon which this court might invalidate the decision of the Commission. He does not, for example, identify reasons constituting "good cause" for missing the original deadline to appeal or for missing the hearings scheduled by the hearing officer. He similar! y does not argue that the decision on the merits to deny him benefits was erroneous. Instead, Petitioner explains that he needs unemployment benefits to support himself and his family. While the court is certainly sympathetic to financial hardship, in order to satisfy his burden of proof and the requirement that he file a brief in support of his appeal, he was obliged to offer some legal basis for appellate review.

4 Date Filed 12-30-09 CUMBERLAND Docket No. __ AP-_O--'9_-_5_0 _ County

Action --C-S_O--"C_A--'-p.....p_e_a_l _

GABRIEL WILLIAMS STATE OF MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 16 HEMLOCK STREET COMMISSION PORTLAND, ME 04102

YS.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney ELIZABETH WYMAN AAG

Date of Entry 2009 Dec. 31 Received December 30, 2009. SOC Appeal filed with attachments.

2010 Jan. 12 Received 1-11-10. Letter from Elizabeth Wyman AAG entering her appearance on behalf of state of Me Un. Ins. Comm. and stating her position is that the court should affirm Commission's decision filed.

Feb. 22 Received 2-19-10. Record filed.

," On 2-22-10. Briefing schedule mailed. Petitioner's brief due 3-31-10

ar. 15 Received 3-8-10. Petitioner's brief filed.

Apr. 9 Received 4-9-10. Responsent's brief filed.

June 2 On 6-2-10. Hearing held on 80C appeal. Court takes matter under advisement. No recording. Cole J. presiding. Elizabeth Wyman AAG present for respondent. No appearance of Gabriel Williams

June 23 Received 6-23-10. Order filed. (Cole, J.) Judgment affirmed. 6-23-10 copy mailed to Gabriel Williams and to Elizabeth Wyman AAG