Opinion
No. CV 08 4029790
November 13, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Craig Werman, [hereinafter claimant] has appealed the decision of the Employment Security Board of Review [hereinafter Board] denying his appeal to the Referee, wherein he sought review of a determination of his eligibility for benefits. The hearing administrator found that he was ineligible for benefits because he quit his job without good cause attributable to the employer. The Board ruled that due to his late appeal to the referee, without good cause, was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The claimant argues that there was good cause for his late appeal. For reasons stated herein, the appeal is dismissed.
The record discloses the following facts. On September 18, 2007, the administrator ruled the claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, finding that the claimant had quit without good cause attributable to his employer. The claimant filed an appeal on October 11, 2007, two days beyond the statutory appeal period. Conn. Gen. Statutes § 31-241(a). The fact that October 9, 2007 was the operative date for a timely appeal was printed in bold on the "notice of decision" mailed to claimant on September 18, 2007. On October 31, 2007, the appeals referee heard the appeal. By decision dated and mailed November 6, 2007, the referee held that she was without jurisdiction to hear the matter due to the claimant's late appeal without good cause shown. The referee found that the claimant had received the administrator's determination on eligibility three or four days after it was mailed; that claimant read the form but never sought clarification for any confusion he had; claimant failed to read the portion of the form telling him the date for the expiration of the appeal period; and that during the appeal period, claimant was busy with personal matters including a divorce. Claimant then filed a timely appeal of the referee's decision and by decision dated and mailed December 28, 2007 the Board of Review dismissed the appeal and affirmed the referee's decision. The Board's findings as to claimant's arguments for good cause indicate that he was "preoccupied with going through a divorce, trying to fill out financial applications for his daughter and sending out resumes and cover letters." The claimant then filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court.
The court's standard of review in an administrative appeal is limited. "`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) quoting Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, 283 Conn. 273, 276 (1996). Both the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact made by the referee are binding upon this court. Id. Should the issue involve a question of law, however, the court's review must broaden. The court must determine "whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed such facts." Id. While a court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion. Id.
In the present case, the court is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions of the board. The claimant never sought to correct the board's factual findings and thus, is precluded from attacking the factual findings. See P.B. § 22-4; J.S.F. Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, 265 Conn. 413, 422-23 (2003) (court cannot review evidence in record when claimant failed to file motion to correct the findings of the board).
Moreover, the board's conclusion that the claimant filed a late appeal without good cause of the administrator's decision is supported by the findings of fact, and is reasonably drawn from those facts. The findings of fact show that the arguments made by claimant to the referee and the board in support of his claim for good cause were the same arguments he put before this Court at his argument; namely, that he was under personal pressure during the appeal period.
Section 31-237g-15(b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides the framework for the definition of "good cause" for a late appeal from the Administrator's decision. The eleven factors provided in the regulation strongly militate against the claimant, as those factors were considered by the Board of Review.
"Although it is true that `[t]he purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is remedial, and its provisions are to be construed liberally as regards beneficiaries in order that it may accomplish its purpose'; Derench v. Administrator, 141 Conn. 321, 324, 106 A.2d 150 (1954); it is also true that appeals within the unemployment compensation system must be taken in a timely fashion and, if they are not, they come `too late' for review. Id." Gumbs v. Administrator, 9 Conn.App. 131, 133 (1986). Dismissal of an appeal due to the failure to timely file is a harsh outcome. The law, however, does provide for a late appeal when good cause has been shown. An argument for good cause was presented and considered here; it was rightly rejected.
The Board's decision correctly applies the law to the facts and is rational and logical, not unreasonable or arbitrary. The appeal of the claimant is denied.