BETTY J BAKER, Employee

EMMPAK FOODS INC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee's request for hearing is dismissed, and the department determination remains in effect.

Dated and mailed February 17, 2006
bakerbe . usd : 115 : 4  PC 711

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

A department determination denying benefits was dated and mailed on December 5, 2005, and stated on its face that it would become final unless a written appeal was postmarked or received by December 19, 2005. The employee's appeal was postmarked on December 28, 2005, and received by the department on December 29, 2005.

The standard for excusing a failure to timely appeal a department determination is "reason beyond control." This is a very rigorous standard, and only extraordinary reasons have been found by the commission to satisfy it. See, Jerome Kosmoski, UI Hearing No. S9900245MW (LIRC March 22, 2000). It was certainly within the employee's control to read the determination when she received it and to note the appeal deadline. See, Thelen v. Toms Quality Millwork, Inc, UI Hearing No. 99003677MD (LIRC Dec. 22, 1999).

The employee explains that she was waiting for documents from her physician, which would corroborate information she had supplied the department adjudicator, before filing her appeal. However, the failure of the employee to possess, during the appeal period, the additional information she references, did not prevent her from crafting and filing an appeal, arid this failure does not, as a result, provide a reason beyond control br her untimely appeal. See, Trego v. Seagull Aviation Parts, Inc., UI Hearing No. 02403884AP (LIRC March 7, 2003); Woods v. Kohl's Food Stores, Inc., UI Hearing No. 03603487MW (LIRC May 21, 2003); Dorfler v. Diane S. Diel, S.C., UI Hearing No. 05600660MW (LIRC March 4, 2005).

The employee also implies that she relied upon the advice of her attorney to delay filing her appeal. However, the actions of the employee':s attorney are imputed to her and would not provide a reason beyond her control for her untimely request for hearing. See, Young v. Gannett Publishing, Inc., UI Hearing No. 02402441AP (Aug. 8, 2002).

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2007/10/22