Leroy Stancil v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The instant matter comes to the Superior Court as an appeal pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 31-249b from the decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division dismissing the appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The record reveals that on April 3, 2008 the Administrator found in favor of the claimant-appellant and granted him unemployment compensation benefits.   Thereafter, on April 14, 2008 the employer timely appealed the decision to the Employment Security Appeals Division and a hearing was held on May 1, 2008.   The Referee reversed the decision of the Administrator awarding the appellant unemployment compensation benefits and sent notice via written decision on May 14, 2008.   The written decision contained notice in bold letters that a Notice of Intent to Appeal must be filed on or before June 4, 2008.   Thereafter, on November 20, 2009 the appellant filed an appeal of the decision of the Appeals Referee.   The Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.   The claimant-appellant filed the instant appeal.   The parties appeared before the Superior Court on September 25, 2010 and presented oral argument.

Connecticut General Statute Section 31-248 creates the right to appeal from any decision of an employment security referee and expressly provides that any such appeal must be taken within twenty-one days from the date the decision is mailed to the party.  Conn. Gen.Stat. Sec. 31-248.   The statute carves out an exception, however, for late filed appeals upon a showing of good cause.  Id.

In the present matter, the claimant admitted that he failed to file his appeal within the time limit proscribed but claims ¹ that he had good cause for the untimely appeal as 1) he did not fully understand the decision and 2) he did not fully understand the appeal process.

Thus, the appeal turned on whether the appellant had good cause for filing his appeal late.   In reaching its decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction the Board of Review relied upon the following pertinent facts.

1. Notice of the Appeals Referee's decision was mailed on May 14, 2008.

2. The Notice contained an advisement in bold capital letters that the last day to file an appeal was June 4, 2008.

3. The claimant did not file his appeal until November 20, 2009, approximately one year and five months after the 21-day deadline.

4. The appellant's claim for the late filing was that he did not understand the decision or the appeal process.

In appeals pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 31-249b, the court is bound by the factual findings of the Board of Review and whereas here, the issue involves the application of the law to the facts as found, the court must simply determine whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonable or logically have followed from such facts.  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381 (1988);  Taminski v. Administrator, 168 Conn. 324, 326 (1975);  Calnan v. Administrator, 42 Conn.App. 779, 785 (1996).   The court must not substitute its own conclusions for that of the Board.   Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4-5 (1980);  See also, Practice Book Sec. 22-9.

As set forth above, in the present appeal the appellant acknowledged that he did not timely file his appeal, but contended that he had good cause for the late filing.   He based his good cause argument upon the fact that he was a self-represented party at the time he received notice of the decision and that he did not fully understand the decision or the appeal process.   The Board of Review rejected this argument citing to Senn v. Clearview, Inc., Board Case No:  626-BR-88 (7/21/88), for the well established proposition that a party's failure to read the appeal rights constitutes a lack of due diligence that precludes a finding of good cause.   The Board further relied upon the decision of Lavalle v. The Dow Chemical Co., Board Case No:  411-BR-89 (6/12/89), to support its finding that the appellant lacked good cause for filing his appeal late.   That decision similarly held that a party's failure to seek clarification of his or her appeal rights likewise constitutes lack of due diligence barring a good cause finding to support a late filing.

The Board of Review appropriately applied the law to the facts of the case at hand in determining that the appellant's lack of understanding regarding the memorandum of decision and the appeal process did not constitute good cause for the late filing.   See, Gumbs v. Administrator, 9 Conn.App. 131 (1986) (appeals within the unemployment compensation system must be timely filed or they come too late for review).   Such a conclusion is neither unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal nor an abuse of discretion.

For the foregoing reason the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

It is so Ordered this 14th day of October 2010.

BY THE COURT,

Susan A. Connors

Judge of Superior Court

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The appellant claimed at oral argument that his due process rights were violated because the Memorandum of Decision of the Appeals Referee did not advise him that as a result of the decision he would be required to pay back the unemployment compensation benefits received through the date of the decision.   The court declines to review this argument as it was not noticed or briefed.   See, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 287 Conn. 57, 87 (2008)..  FN1. The appellant claimed at oral argument that his due process rights were violated because the Memorandum of Decision of the Appeals Referee did not advise him that as a result of the decision he would be required to pay back the unemployment compensation benefits received through the date of the decision.   The court declines to review this argument as it was not noticed or briefed.   See, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 287 Conn. 57, 87 (2008).

Connors, Susan A., J.