Brian S. Poulin v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this case the plaintiff, Brian Poulin, was denied eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits by an administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act on the grounds that he voluntarily abandoned his job.   He appealed to the Employment Security Appeals Division.   The Appeals Referee dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that his appeal was late, and because he had no good cause for a late appeal.   He appealed again to the Board of Review.   That panel affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal.   Now on further appeal to this court, the plaintiff argues that there was good cause for his late appeal.   The defendant has filed a Motion for Judgment seeking judgment in its favor.   For the following reasons, the court upholds the decision of the Board of Review.   Accordingly, the defendant's Motion for Judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The record discloses the following facts:  On January 21, 2010, a hearing was held before an administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act at the Department of Labor to consider plaintiff's claim for unemployment benefits.   He did not attend.   Based on the information available, the administrator ruled that the claimant, Brian Poulin, was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.   The administrator found that he had abandoned his job.   Under such circumstances, state statutes provide that the employee is ineligible for benefits, and will remain ineligible until he has earned at least ten times his benefit rate and is otherwise eligible.  General Statutes § 31-236(a)(2)(A).   Plaintiff was given notice that he had twenty-one days to file an appeal or the administrator's decision would be final.   Plaintiff appealed to the Employment Security Appeals Division on February 19, 2010-eight days late.   Under the agency's rules, unless the appealing party shows good cause for filing the appeal late, the referee's decision becomes final.  General Statutes § 31-241;  Reg. § 31-237g-1(c) and § 31-237g-15(a).   On April 27, 2010, the appeals referee held a hearing to learn the reason for the late appeal.   Poulin stated, inter alia, that it was late because he was trying to obtain correct dates of hospitalizations to prove that he did not abandon his job, but, rather, was hospitalized at times.   On May 11, 2010, the referee dismissed the appeal finding that claimant conceded that he procrastinated, and that he offered no evidence of any factors, outside of his control, which reasonably prevented him from adhering to the time limits.   The referee, therefore, found no good cause for the lateness.   On May 19, 2010, Poulin appealed that decision to the Board of Review arguing that he had a good excuse for the late appeal because he was trying to gather medical records to support his case and needed more time to do that.   The Board of Review, in a decision dated June 30, 2010, found that the referee correctly concluded that there was no good cause shown for the late appeal, and further found that Poulin failed to read the appeals rights at the bottom of the administrator's decision that specifically warned him that the decision would be final unless he filed an appeal within twenty-one days.   His appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

In his court appeal, plaintiff argues as follows:

I feel confident that my reasoning for filing “8 days late” is valid.   I needed time to gather supporting documentation in order to prove I was hospitalized and was wrongfully terminated and did not abandon my job.   I currently have medical documentation to support my case.

Plaintiff's appeal, p.1.

The court's standard of review in an unemployment compensation appeal is limited.  “To the extent that an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249b, concerns findings of fact, a court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the board of review.”  Latina v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159, 733 A.2d 885 (1999) quoting Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 283 Conn. 273, 276, 679 A.2d 347 (1996).   Both the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact made by the agency are binding on this court.  Id. Should the issue involve a question of law, however, the court's review responsibility is broader.   The court must determine “whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed such facts.”  Id. While a court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.  Id.

In the present case, the court is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions of the board.   The claimant never sought to correct the board's factual findings and thus, is precluded from attacking the factual findings.   See, Practice Book § 22-4;  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422-23, 828 A.2d 609 (2003) (court cannot review evidence in record when claimant failed to file motion to correct the findings the board).

The court finds that the board's conclusion that the claimant filed a late appeal without good cause is supported by the findings of fact, and is reasonably drawn from those facts.   The court further observes that the argument made by the plaintiff to the agency in support of his claim for good cause is essentially the same argument that he now puts before this court, i.e., he needed time to collect the records he wanted to use.   However, there was no evidence of any delay beyond his control.

Reg. § 31-237g-15(b) ¹ sets forth the criteria for testing whether good cause exists for a late appeal.   The agency reviewed plaintiff's excuse in light of those criteria and found no good cause for the late appeal in this matter.   This court finds that the board ruled fairly and within its authority, and it will not reverse that determination.

“Although it is true that ‘[t]he purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is remedial, and its provisions are to be construed liberally as regards beneficiaries in order that it may accomplish its purpose’ Derench v. Administrator, 141 Conn. 321, 324, 106 A.2d 150 (1954);  it is also true that appeals within the unemployment compensation system must be taken in a timely fashion and, if they are not, they come ‘too late’ for review.  Id.” Gumbs v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 9 Conn.App. 131, 133, 517 A.2d 257 (1986).   Dismissal of an appeal due to the failure to timely file is a harsh outcome.   The law, however, does provide for a late appeal when good cause has been shown.   An argument for good cause was presented and considered in this case;  it was rightly rejected.

The board's decision correctly applies the law to the facts and is rational and logical, not unreasonable or arbitrary.   The decision is upheld.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant's Motion for Judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed accordingly.

THE COURT

Robert F. Vacchelli

Judge, Superior Court

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Reg. § 31-237g-15(b) provides:(b) For purposes of this section, a party has good cause for failing to file an appeal within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the issuance of the administrator's determination if a reasonably prudent individual under the same or similar circumstances would have been prevented from filing a timely appeal.   In determining whether good cause has been shown, the Referee shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to:(i) The extent to which the party has demonstrated diligence in its previous dealings with the Administrator and the Employment Security Appeals Division;(ii) Whether the party was represented;(iii) The degree of the party's familiarity with the procedures of the Appeals Division;(iv) Whether the party received timely and adequate notice of the need to act;(v) Administrative error by the Administrator or Employment Security Appeals Division;  or the failure of the Administrator, the Appeals Division, or any other party to discharge its responsibilities;(vi) Factors outside the control of the party which prevented timely action;(vii) The party's physical or mental impairment;(viii) Whether the party acted diligently in filing an appeal once the reason for the late filing no longer existed;(ix) Whether there is substantial prejudice to an adverse party which prevents such party from adequately presenting its case, the total length of time that the action was untimely;(x) Coercion or intimidation which prevented the party from promptly filing its appeal;(xi) Good faith error, provided that in determining whether good faith error constitutes good cause the Referee shall consider the extent of prejudice to any other party, any prior history of late filing due to such error, whether the appeal is excessively late, and whether the party otherwise acted with due diligence..  FN1. Reg. § 31-237g-15(b) provides:(b) For purposes of this section, a party has good cause for failing to file an appeal within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the issuance of the administrator's determination if a reasonably prudent individual under the same or similar circumstances would have been prevented from filing a timely appeal.   In determining whether good cause has been shown, the Referee shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to:(i) The extent to which the party has demonstrated diligence in its previous dealings with the Administrator and the Employment Security Appeals Division;(ii) Whether the party was represented;(iii) The degree of the party's familiarity with the procedures of the Appeals Division;(iv) Whether the party received timely and adequate notice of the need to act;(v) Administrative error by the Administrator or Employment Security Appeals Division;  or the failure of the Administrator, the Appeals Division, or any other party to discharge its responsibilities;(vi) Factors outside the control of the party which prevented timely action;(vii) The party's physical or mental impairment;(viii) Whether the party acted diligently in filing an appeal once the reason for the late filing no longer existed;(ix) Whether there is substantial prejudice to an adverse party which prevents such party from adequately presenting its case, the total length of time that the action was untimely;(x) Coercion or intimidation which prevented the party from promptly filing its appeal;(xi) Good faith error, provided that in determining whether good faith error constitutes good cause the Referee shall consider the extent of prejudice to any other party, any prior history of late filing due to such error, whether the appeal is excessively late, and whether the party otherwise acted with due diligence.

Vacchelli, Robert F., J.