IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
HENRY C. ALLEN, ) 
) 
Appellant (pro se), ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 02A-01-009 
) 
J.R. GETTIER & ASSOCIATES) 
and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
)
Appellees. )
Date Submitted: April 24, 2002 
Date Decided: May 22, 2002 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
UPON EMPLOYEE’S APPEAL FROM THE 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD 
AFFIRMED 
Henry C. Allen, B ear, Delaware, Appellant - Claimant Below. 
Robert F. Stewart, Jr., Esquire, Newark, Delaware, Appellee - Employer Below. 
Stephani Ballard, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Appellee - UIAB Below 

This 22nd day of May 2002 upon review of the record below, it appears to the 
Court that: 

FACTS 

This is an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("UIAB") 
which determined that Henry C. Allen ("Claimant") appeal, from the UIAB’s decision 
that he w as disqu alified f rom rec eiving u nemp loyment b enefits , was u ntimely. 
Claimant was employed as a security guard for J.R. Gettier & Associates 
("Employer") from February 10, 2000 through July 28, 2001. On or about August 5, 
2001 Claimant filed for unemployment benefits. A Claims Deputy found that claimant 
was disqualified from receiving benefits. This dec ision was based on Employer’s 
representations that Claimant last worked on July 30, 2001, then took a two-week 
vacation. Employer contends that the site manager tried to contact Claimant after the 
vacation but Claimant did not call back. When Claimant eventually called back, the 
position was fi lled. 

The Claims Deputy thus determined that Claimant voluntarily quit without good 
cause. This decision set forth in a Notice of Determination was dated and mailed 
September 21, 2001. Pursuant to the statute, Claimant had ten (10) days from the date of 
mailing of the No tice of Determination to f ile an appeal from the C laims Deputy’s 
determina tion. Thus, C laimant had until Octob er 1, 2001 to file an app eal. 
Claimant did not file an appeal until October 11, 2001, ten days after the last day 
he could appeal. Claimant claims he was late in filing his appeal as he did not receive the 
Notice of Determination. Claimant had moved from his last known address registered 
with the Department of Labor. Claimant filed a change of address form with the United 
States Postal Service ("USPS") but allegedly had problems receiving mail at the new 
address. Claimant admits that he did not change his address with the Department of 
Labor until October 11, 2001. 

On November 4, 2001, a hearing was held by the Appeals Referee solely on the 
issue of timeliness. Michael Chitwood ("Chitwood"), a Claims Deputy, testified that on 
September 21, 2001 Claimant’s record address at the Department of Labor was 902 
Governor House Circle, Wilmington Delaware. Chitwood testified that the Notice of 
Determ ination w as sent to that add ress and never r eturned by the U SPS a s unde liverabl e. 
At the h earing, C laiman t ackno wledg ed he d id not fil e an ap peal un til Octob er 11, 20 01. 
He testified that he went to the UIAB on October 11 because he had not heard anything 
from them and wanted to know the status of his benefits. At that time, he was informed 
that he was disqualified from receiving benefits and immediately he filed an appeal. He 
testified that he had change d his address with the U SPS to 2 Bo ggs Lane, Bea r, Delaware 
but did not rece ive any m ail from the De partme nt of L abor th ere. 

In a decision dated November 21, 2001 the Appeals Referee issued an opinion 
holding that Claimant’s late appeal was jurisdictionally barred and no circumstances 
justified a waiver. Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the UIAB on November 
26, 2001. The UIAB affirmed the below decision ruling that Claimant’s late appeal was 
jurisdicti onally ba rred. Cl aiman t then file d this ap peal on Januar y 24, 200 2. 

STANDARD OR REVIEW 

When reviewing a decision of the UIAB this Court determines whether the 
decision is supported by substan tial evidence and wh ether the Board’s proc eedings are 
free fro m lega l error. Unemployment Ins. Bd. of Dep’t. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 
308, 309 (Del. 1975 ); Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 131 5, 1317 (Del. 1986 ). 
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequ ate to su pport a conclu sion. Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 
1104 (D el. 1988). T he Board is to solve an y questions as to credibility and co nflicts in 
testimony; wh ile the Cou rt is to determin e only wheth er there is satisfa ctory proof to 
suppo rt a factu al findin g. Duncan, 337 A.2d at 309; Abex Corp. v. Todd, 235 A.2d 271, 
273 (Del. 1967). 

ANA LYSIS 

Claimant’s brief offers no specific challenge to the UIAB’s factual findings nor 
application of law. Claimant merely asserts that he never received the Notice of 
Determination as he moved from the record address of the Department of Labor and had 
problems with the U SPS forw arding his mail. After a review of the record the Co urt 
finds that the UIAB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal 
error fo r the rea sons se t forth b elow. 

The UIAB found that Claimant’s appeal was jurisdictionally barred. This bar is set 
forth in 19 Del. C . § 3318, w hich states in re levant part: 

   Unless a claimant or a last employer . . . files an appeal within 10 calendar 
   days after such Claims Deputy’s determination was mailed to the last 
   known ad dresses of the claimant an d the last employer, the Claims D eputy’s 
   determina tion shall be f inal and be nefits shall be paid or den ied in 
   accordance therewith. 

There is no dispute that C laimant’s appeal was f iled after this ten-day time limit. Further, 
there is no dispute that Claimant’s last known address was 902 Governor House Circle, 
Wilmington, Delaware. The Supreme Court stated in Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal 
Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 226 (Del. 1991 ), that: 

We are of the opinion that a statutory ten-day time limit for filing an 
administrative appeal is reasonable. Its application in this case where the 
claimant had notice through prior experience of the possible misdelivery of 
his mail and where the misdelivery was made through no fault of the 
Department of Labor did not violate the claimant's rights. 

Here, there was no evidence of fault on the part of the Department of Labor. The 
Department of Labor mailed the Notice of Determination to Claimant’s last known 
address. Claimant made no effort before October 11, 2001 to change his address with the 
Department of Labor, despite known problems with the USPS forwarding his mail to his 
new address. Whereas Claimant filed his appeal twenty-one days after the mailing of the 
Notice of Determination, the Department of Labor mailed the N otice of Determination to 
Claimant’s last known address and Claimant admits that he did not change his address 
with the Department of Labor until October 11, 2001 despite known problems with the 
USPS forwarding his mail, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the decision of 
the UIAB. 

For the forgoing reasons the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board is hereby AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ALFORD , J. 
Original: Prothonotary’s Office - Civil Division