Date Submitted: July 22, 2013
On Appeal from the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.
David Safford, Newark, Pro Se Appellant.
James T. Wakley, Esquire, Attorney for the Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Calvin L. Scott, Jr. Judge
Before the Court is Appellant David Safford's ("Appellant") appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board"). The Court has reviewed Appellant's and the Board's submissions and the record. For the following reasons, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
Appellant was employed with HGDS Acquisition, LLC, d/b/a "Footprint Retail Services" from February 8, 2010. Appellant filed for unemployment benefits effective December 19, 2010, on a fund code 10 with a weekly benefit amount of $165.00. On November 19, 2012, a Claims Deputy determined that pursuant to 19 Del.C. § 3325, Appellant received an overpayment of benefits for eight weeks beginning January 1, 2011 to April 23, 2011 in the amount of $777.00.
Appellant appealed the Claims Deputy's decision in person on November 27, 2012 and a hearing was held before an Appeals Referee on December 19, 2012. Both Appellant and a representative for the department were present and gave testimony. Following the hearing, the Referee concluded that there was an overpayment in the amount of $777.00 to Appellant by the Department, as previously determined by the Claims Deputy, and affirmed the Claims Deputy's decision. The Referee's decision provided that the final date to appeal was December 30, 2012; however, because that date was a Sunday, Appellant actually had until Monday, December 31, 2012 to file an appeal.
On January 3, 2013,  three days past the final date to appeal the Referee's decision, Appellant filed an appeal to the Board explaining the reasons for his untimely appeal and why he believed the Referee's decision was made in error. On January 16, 2013, the Board determined that Appellant's appeal was three days past the final date to file and therefore, not timely.
In declining to accept Appellant's appeal, the Board explained that both the Notice of the Hearing and the Referee's Decision and Dismissal were sent to Appellant's address of record with the Department and that because there was no evidence of departmental error which prevented the Appellant from filing a timely appeal, the Appellant was given notice and opportunity to be heard sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. As a result, the Board denied Appellant's application for further review and determined that Referee's decision to dismiss Appellant's case was final and binding.
Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court on February 4, 2013. Pursuant to this Court's briefing schedule, Appellant subsequently filed an opening brief on April 21, 2013 ...