A.D., Appellant-Petitioner v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.D. appeals the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development's decision to dismiss her appeal as untimely.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] BSN Sports, Inc., terminated A.D.’s employment on August 28, 2025. Thereafter, A.D. filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Department of Workforce Development (“DWD”). On October 8, a DWD claims investigator determined that A.D. was discharged from her employment for just cause. Specifically, A.D. “was discharged due to a violation of the employer's policy. The policy was known, reasonable, and uniformly enforced.” Appellee's App. p. 7. The DWD sent notice of determination to A.D. at her address of record, and the notice advised A.D. that the determination would become final on October 23 “if not appealed.” Id. The notice further advised A.D. that she could appeal the determination within fifteen “days of the date [it] was sent.” Id.

[4] A.D. did not appeal the determination in a timely manner. But on November 3, she attempted to file an appeal by personally delivering it to the DWD. In that appeal, for the first time, A.D. claimed that BSN Sports terminated her employment “while [she] was receiving emergency medical care and after [her] employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation for [her] documented health condition.” Id. at 13. But A.D. did not state that she never received notice of the claims investigator's determination dated and sent on October 8.

[5] On November 7, a DWD administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed A.D.’s appeal because she had failed to file it by October 23, the date the determination became final. The DWD mailed notice of the dismissal to A.D. at her address of record. The notice informed A.D. that she had fifteen days to appeal the ALJ's dismissal of her appeal to the DWD Review Board.

[6] Seventy-three days later, on January 20, A.D. attempted to appeal the dismissal of her claim for unemployment benefits to the Review Board. A.D. claimed that her appeal of the October 8 determination “was delayed due to circumstances outside of [her] control, including late receipt of the determination notice, severe illness, and language barrier.”¹ Id. at 21. For the first time, A.D. stated that she did not receive the October 8 determination until November 3, when she personally appeared at the DWD office. However, A.D. has never claimed that the DWD used the incorrect address to send notices to her, and the address is the same address that A.D. listed on the documents she filed with the agency.

[7] On January 23, the Review Board dismissed A.D.’s appeal because it was not filed in a timely manner. A.D. now appeals.

The Review Board properly dismissed A.D.’s appeal of the claim determination.

[8] A.D. proceeds pro se. Our court holds pro se litigants to the same standards as a trained attorney because pro se litigants are “ ‘afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented.’ ” Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Liu, 250 N.E.3d 406, 410 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014)). “Accordingly, a party proceeding pro se must ‘be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her action.’ ” Id. (quoting McCullough v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 70 N.E.3d 820, 825 (Ind. 2017)). And our court “will not become a party's advocate ․” Jones v. Hawk, 233 N.E.3d 1061, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

[9] A.D. claims that she did not receive proper notice of the determination that she was not entitled to unemployment benefits, and, therefore, the Review Board erred when it affirmed the ALJ's decision that her appeal was untimely.

Under Indiana's Unemployment Compensation Act, “[a]ny decision of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.” Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(a) (2007). The Board's conclusions of law may be challenged as to “the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.” Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(f). Consistent with appellate review of other administrative adjudications, we categorize the Board's findings three ways: (1) basic, underlying facts; (2) ultimate facts derived as inferences or conclusions from basic, underlying facts; (3) and conclusions of law.

We review the Board's findings of basic facts under a substantial evidence standard, and we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess its credibility. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the Board's findings and, absent limited exceptions, treat those findings as conclusive and binding.

Company v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 113 N.E.3d 1214, 1217-18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 960 N.E.2d 118, 122-23 (Ind. 2012)) (footnote omitted). Whether an appeal of an agency decision is timely is a conclusion of law. L.M. v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 184 N.E.3d 674, 676 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022); see also Quakenbush v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051, 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[10] The DWD must “promptly make a determination of the individual's status as an insured worker” and “notice of the determination ․ shall be furnished to the individual promptly.” Ind. Code § 22-4-17-2(a).² “For the individual who is not insured, the notice shall include the reason for the determination.” Id. The individual then has fifteen days “after the determination was sent by the department to the individual” to ask for a hearing before an administrative law judge.³ Id. If the individual does not do so, “the determination shall be final and benefits shall be paid or denied in accordance with the determination.” Id. Indiana Code section 22-4-17-3 allows the individual to also appeal the decision of the ALJ to the Review Board. The ALJ's decision is “deemed to be the final decision of the review board, unless within fifteen (15) days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision, an appeal is taken by the commissioner or by any party adversely affected by such decision to the review board.” Id.

[11] A claimant's untimely appeal to the Review Board is properly dismissed because the Review Board will not have obtained jurisdiction over the appeal. Quakenbush, 891 N.E.2d at 1053 (citing Szymanski v. Rev. Bd. of Dep't. of Workforce Dev., 656 N.E.2d 290, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). When a statute contains a requirement that an appeal or notice of the intention to appeal shall be filed within a certain time, strict compliance with the requirement is a condition precedent to acquiring jurisdiction, while noncompliance with the requirement results in dismissal of the appeal. Id.

[12] A.D. failed to appeal the October 8 determination within the time frame prescribed by Indiana Code section 22-4-17-2(a). Moreover, when she filed her untimely appeal in person on November 3, A.D. did not claim lack of proper notice as a reason for her delayed filing. A.D. also did not claim any due process violation or that the DWD did not comply with the notice requirements in Indiana Code section 22-4-17-2.

[13] A.D. did not claim lack of notice of the determination, and therefore, the ALJ dismissed her appeal as untimely. Thereafter, A.D. claimed lack of proper notice of the October 8 determination for the first time in her next attempted appeal to the Review Board. But that attempted appeal to the Review Board was also filed well beyond the time limits allowed by statute.

[14] The DWD's determination and notices provided instructions for appealing the decisions and the time limits for doing so. And the determination and notices were mailed to A.D.’s address of record. A.D. does not dispute that the notices were sent to the correct address. When an administrative agency sends notice through the regular course of mail, a presumption arises that such notice is received. See Scott v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 725 N.E.2d 993, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[15] A.D. did not present any evidence to either the ALJ or the Review Board that rebuts that presumption here. Because the DWD sent the notice to the correct address and A.D. did not claim lack of notice until after the ALJ dismissed her appeal as untimely, A.D.’s statement that she did not receive notice without some additional corroborating evidence (or concession by the Review Board) is not sufficient to rebut the presumption.

[16] The Review Board did not err when it concluded that A.D.’s appeal of the determination was untimely, and for this reason, we affirm the Review Board's dismissal of A.D.’s appeal.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A.D. speaks a dialect of Malinke and stated that she does not speak English. Appellee's App. p. 22.

2.   Indiana Code section 22-4-17-2 was amended effective July 1, 2026. We apply the version in effect when A.D. filed her claim for unemployment benefits.

3.   Though it does not impact our decision in this case, we observe that, when notice of the DWD's determination is served through the United States mail, three days “must be added to a period that commences upon service of that notice.” See Ind. Code § 22-4-17-14(e).

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.