S.S., Appellant-Petitioner v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.S. was fired from his job in January 2025. The next month, he filed for unemployment benefits with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. The claims investigator denied his claim, and S.S. appealed. The administrative law judge (ALJ) held a telephonic hearing, following which it issued findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming the denial of benefits. S.S. then appealed to the Review Board, which adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions and affirmed its decision.

[2] S.S., pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal, but he didn't request a transcript of the telephonic hearing. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(5) (explaining that the Notice of Appeal must designate “all portions of the Transcript necessary to present fairly and decide the issues on appeal”). S.S. then filed his appellant's brief, making three arguments, but he didn't include any citations to the record. See App. R. 46(A)(6)(a) (“The facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix[.]”); App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (providing that appellant's argument must be supported by citations to “the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on”).

[3] The Review Board filed its appellee's brief, arguing that S.S. “has waived any argument of error ․ by failing to present the Court with a sufficient record to review his claims.” Appellee's Br. p. 9; see Martinez v. State, 82 N.E.3d 261, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (explaining that it is appellant's burden to provide the reviewing court with a complete record and that a failure to do so results in waiver), trans. denied. S.S. responded to the Review Board's claim of waiver by filing in this Court a Motion to Supplement the Record. In that motion, he asks us for “leave to supplement the record on appeal by ordering” a transcript of the hearing. No. 25A-EX-1088 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2025). According to S.S., he didn't request a transcript in the Notice of Appeal “[d]ue to misunderstanding of the appellate rules and lack of legal training[.]” Id. S.S. claims that a transcript of the hearing is “necessary” for us to review the issues on appeal and that the Review Board won't be prejudiced. Id.

[4] The Review Board filed a response, arguing that S.S.’s request for a transcript is “much too late.” No. 25A-EX-1088 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2025). We agree. First, even though S.S. is pro se, he must follow the rules of procedure. See Picket Fence Prop. Co. v. Davis, 109 N.E.3d 1021, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (explaining that “pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so”), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Notably, S.S. doesn't explain what part of the appellate rules he didn't understand. Second, the Review Board didn't have the benefit of a transcript when it filed its appellee's brief, so granting S.S.’s request for the transcript to be prepared now would essentially give him a second appeal. We therefore affirm the denial of benefits.¹

[5] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In a separate order issued today, we deny S.S.’s Motion to Supplement the Record.

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.