Submitted: September 5, 2013
Upon Appeal From a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
James T. Wakley, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorney for Appellee
David Pacheco, pro se.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES H. TOLIVER, IV TOLIVER, JUDGE
Before the Court is an appeal by David Pacheco from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the decision of the appeals referee and claims deputy and held that Mr. Pacheco failed to file a timely appeal of the claims deputy's decision. Mr. Pacheco disagrees with this decision. That which follows is the Court's resolution of the issues so presented.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
On February 27, 2013, Mr. Pacheco received three notices from a claims deputy of the Delaware Department of Labor informing him the department had determined he had made false statements and/or representations to obtain benefits. As a result, Mr. Pacheco received benefits to which he was not entitled totaling $10, 231.00 and would be required to repay that amount to the Department of Labor. Each notice contained a certificate of mailing identifying February 27, 2013 as the date of mailing. Additionally, the notice, in bold letters, advised Mr. Pacheco of his rights to file a written appeal of the aforementioned determinations on or before March 9, 2013.
Mr. Pacheco did file an appeal denying that he had been overpaid but he did not do so until March, 13, 2013. That appeal was reviewed by another claims deputy who, on March 18, 2013, rejected the appeal as untimely. Mr. Pacheco then took his dispute to an appeals referee who reviewed the matter on April 9. Three days later, on April 12, the appeals referee also denied his appeal as untimely. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Pacheco filed an appeal with the Board.
The Board heard the appeal on April 24, 2013.
T. Stewart appeared on behalf of the Department of Labor. She indicated that the three notices of determination were mailed to Mr. Pacheco's address of record and were not returned by the post office as undeliverable. Lastly, Ms. Stewart explained that because the last day that the appeal could have been filed was March 9, 2013 and was not filed until March 13, 2013, the appeal was untimely.
Mr. Pacheco appeared on his own behalf and presented testimony in support of his appeal. He testified that he never received the notices and confirmed that his address on record with the Department of Labor was accurate. His only ...