Brian Maloney v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation.   On November 9, 2011, the Administrator determined that the plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.   On March 1, 2012 the plaintiff appealed the administrator's decision to the appeals division.   On March 15, 2012 the Appeals Referee heard the plaintiff's appeal, and in a decision dated March 22, 2012, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.   The referee dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the untimely appeal.  General Statutes § 31–241 provides that an appeal from the administrator must be taken “within twenty-one calendar days after such notification was mailed.”  Section 31–241 also provides that “any such appeal which is filed after such twenty-one day period may be considered timely if the filing party shows good cause.”   The plaintiff then appealed the referee's decision to the Board of Review, and it rendered a decision adopting the referee's findings of fact with one modification and affirmed the referee's decision.   The plaintiff then filed this appeal.

“The power of the trial court in appeals of this kind is very limited:  ‘the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo;  it is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact, nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the [Appeals Referee or] board.’  Johnson v. Administrator, 3 Conn.App. 264, 276 (1985).   Its function is to determine only if the board acted rationally and logically or illegally and in abuse of its discretion.”   Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153 (1985).  “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 (1999).   The plaintiff in the case at bar did not file a motion to correct any of the referee or board's factual findings per Practice Book § 22–4.   As a result, this “prevents further review of [the] facts found by the board.”  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422–23 (2003);  Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 126 Conn.App. 779, 786–87 (2011);  “ ‘In the absence of a motion to correct the finding of the board, the court is bound by the board's finding’ “ (Citation omitted.)   Warner v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 135 Conn.App. 84, 89 (2012).

In the case at bar, the board and referee found as a fact that the plaintiff simply did not show good cause for filing a timely appeal.   They found that notice of the November 4, 2011 decision was correctly mailed and addressed, and that the plaintiff recalled receiving the decision, but is unsure of the date he received it.   The board and referee also found that the plaintiff was told that he needed to appeal the administrator's decision, but that he made a deliberate decision not to file a timely appeal.  (Record, p. 31.)

The board is free to weigh the opposing testimony and to accept or reject the competing arguments.   Based upon the record before the court, the board's ruling is reasonable and consistent with the applicable statutes, regulations and case law.   The record supports its finding that the plaintiff's appeal was untimely and that he did not show good cause for filing the late appeal.   There was ample evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.   Accordingly, there is no basis for this court to conclude that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or otherwise abused its discretion in reaching its decision.

The decision of the board is affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Frechette, J.

Frechette, Matthew E., J.