CHERYL A. FEENEY-WATHEN; Appellant,
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellees.
Submitted: November 27, 2013
Upon Defendant Bayhealth Medical Center's Motion to Dismiss.
Brian T. N. Jordan, Esquire of Jordan Law, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Appellant.
James H. McMackin, III, Esquire and Allyson B. DiRocco, Esquire of Morris James, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Appellee Bayhealth Medical Center.
William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge
The Court has before it Bayhealth Medical Center's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 72(c).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant Cheryl Feeney-Wathen (hereinafter "Appellant") appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (hereinafter "the Board" or "the UIAB") disqualifying Appellant from the receipt of unemployment benefits. Appellant had been employed as a security officer by Bayhealth Medical Center (hereinafter "Employer") from May 15, 2011 until May 13, 2013.
The Claims Deputy had found that Appellant was terminated from her employment without just cause; the Appeal's Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy's determination. A hearing was held before the Board on October 9, 2013. By decision dated October 17, 2013 the Board reversed the decision of the Appeals Referee and found that Appellant had voluntarily quit her employment because she did not want to accept a temporary position at a different facility. The Board concluded that Appellant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(1).
This appeal followed. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2013. In a section entitled "Grounds for Appeal, " Appellant describes nine different grounds for appealing the Board's decision. These grounds include: lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the position Employer offered to Appellant was within a reasonable distance from her residence; lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Appellant had been accustomed to working at Employer's other locations during her employment; lack of substantial evidence that Appellant voluntarily quit her job; legal error by the Board in reaching each of the three foregoing conclusions; other errors of law and conclusions not supported by substantial evidence; failure of the Board to properly apply the law to the facts; and the findings and decisions of the Board are arbitrary and capricious.
On November 7, 2013 Employer filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Citing 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) and Superior Court Civil Rule 72(c), Employer argues that Appellant's Notice of Appeal fails to state the grounds upon which appellate review is sought. Employer provides no specific argument or details as to what exactly is lacking in the Notice of Appeal.
On November 21, 2013 Appellant filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Appellant directs the Court's attention to the nine stated grounds for relief in the Notice of Appeal, and argues that the Notice ...