K.K., Appellant/Petitioner v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Appellee/Respondent (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After one day of working for Bajco Michiana LLC, K.K. was dismissed for gross misconduct. K.K. applied for unemployment benefits, a request that was denied. K.K. appealed the denial but failed to appear for a telephonic hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“the Department”), resulting in a dismissal of his claim. The Department's Review Board (“the Review Board”) affirmed the dismissal. K.K. contends that the Review Board applied the incorrect standard for gross misconduct and that he was denied due process. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] K.K. was discharged from Bajco on February 17, 2025. According to K.K., he had been offered employment at Bajco after submitting to a background check. After K.K.’s first day at Bajco, however, his manager discharged him due to his criminal history, citing K.K.’s registration as a sex offender. On March 27, 2025 (presumably in response to a claim by K.K. for unemployment benefits), a claims investigator with the Department determined that K.K. had “committed gross misconduct in connection with the work, as defined by IC-22-4-15-6.1” and cancelled all wage credits for K.K. Ex. Vol. p. 3.

[3] K.K. filed an administrative appeal, and, on April 9, 2025, notice was given to him of a telephonic hearing scheduled for “April 24, 2025 at 9:45 AM Indianapolis Time[.]” Ex. Vol. p. 9. The notice directed K.K. to the “U.I. Appeals Hearing Instructions” sheet. Ex. Vol. p. 12. The hearing instructions specifically stated, “If the [ALJ] is not able to reach you, regardless of the cause, it may be considered as a lack of response and participation in the hearing. A decision or dismissal can be issued by the [ALJ] even if you do not participate.” Ex. Vol. p. 13. K.K. was also advised that “[i]f you do not appear at the hearing, the [ALJ] could issue a decision that might be unfavorable to you.” Ex. Vol. p. 16.

[4] On April 24, 2025, the ALJ called K.K. at 9:48 a.m. and left a message on K.K.’s voicemail, stating “I'll make a second attempt to reach you in approximately fifteen minutes. If I am unable to reach you at that time, this appeal will be dismissed.” Tr. p. 3; Ex. Vol. pp. 18–19. The ALJ called K.K. again at 10:04 a.m. but was still unable to reach him. The ALJ dismissed K.K.’s appeal for failure to appear and issued a notice of the dismissal to K.K.

[5] K.K. appealed the ALJ's dismissal to the Review Board, and, while admitting that he had failed to appear for the hearing, contended that it had been due to a misunderstanding of the date and that he had believed the hearing had been set for April 28, 2025. The Review Board affirmed the ALJ's dismissal and incorporated the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Discussion and Decision

[1] We first note that K.K. is proceeding pro se.

It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Twin Lakes Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). This means 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. Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal. Id. While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant's noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived. Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (2015), cert. denied (2015). We will not become an “advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Id.

Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983–84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). K.K. is appealing from the Board's affirmance of the ALJ's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits. The Board contends that K.K. has waived this claim for failure to make a cogent argument. We agree with the Board.

[2] Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(A)(8)(a) requires that an appellate argument contain “the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” “Failure to present a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue on appeal.” Martin v. Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). The extent of K.K.’s argument regarding the ALJ's dismissal of his appeal for failure to appear is to state that he was “denied the opportunity to have his eligibility fairly adjudicated” and to note that “[d]ue process requires that claimants be given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and be heard. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Dismissing an appeal without a hearing and on inadequate grounds denies these fundamental rights.” Appellant's Br. pp. 3, 4.

[3] While we take no issue with K.K.’s general statements regarding due process, he does not address the actual reason for the dismissal of his appeal, i.e., his failure to appear for the hearing. K.K. makes no attempt to explain his failure to appear,¹ much less support any explanation with citations to the record or any legal authority explaining how any of this might entitle him to relief. We conclude that K.K. has failed to make a cogent argument regarding the dismissal of his claim for failure to appear. See Martin, 130 N.E.3d at 137.

[4] We affirm the determination of the Board.

FOOTNOTES

1.   K.K. does not renew the argument made below that he failed to appear because he was mistaken about the date of the hearing before the ALJ.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.