IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
THOMAS BELL, )
)
Appellant, )
) C.A. No. 02A-09-001 WCC 
) 
v. )
)
NORTHEAST TREATMENT )
CENTERS, INC., and )
UNEMPLOYMENT )
INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, )
)
Appellees. )
Submitted: April 1, 2003 
Decided: June 30, 2003 

ORDER 

Upon Appeal from a Decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Affirmed. 
Thomas Bell, 1338 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Pro Se Appellant. 
Bruce C. Herron, Esquire, Akin & Herron, 1220 N. Market Street, #608, P.O. Box 
25047, Wilmington, DE 19899-5047. Attorney for Appellee Northeast Treatment 
Centers, Inc. 
Stephani J. Ballard, Esquire, Department of Justice, Carvel State Office Building, 
820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorney for Appellee 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
CARPENTER, J. 

This 30th day of June, 2003, after consideration of the appeal of Thomas Bell 
("Appellant") from the August 22, 2002 decision of the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board ("Board"), and upon review of the briefs and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that: 

1. The Appellant was employed by Northeast Treatment Centers, Inc., 
("Employer" or "NET"), from April 8, 1998, until March 28, 2002 as a Resident 
Manager in NET’s Alternatives Program, a residential treatment program for 
individuals who are in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. He was 
subsequently discharged from his employment for poor performance and on March 
31, 2002, he filed a claim for unemployment benefits, claiming he had been unjustly 
terminated from his employment. A Claims Deputy from the Department of Labor 
found Appellant eligible for benefits. Employer then appealed this decision to the 
Appeals Referee who, following an evidentiary hearing on July 2, 2002, found that 
the Employer had just cause to discharge the Appellant and disqualified him from the 
receipt of benefits. 

Thereafter, Appellant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board, who 
scheduled a hearing for August 21, 2002. The Appellant failed to appear for the 
hearing and did not notify the Board either before or after the hearing with the reason 
for his absence. Further, he did not request a continuance or postponement of this 
hearing date. The Board subsequently dismissed the appeal because the Appellant 
failed to appear, mailing its decision on August 22, 2002. Consequently, the 
Appellant, pro se, appealed the Board’s decision to this Court, arguing the merits of 
the case and did not address or claim that the Board erred in dismissing the appeal. 

2. The Board asserts that Appellant is procedurally barred from seeking this 
Court’s review. In support, they contend that Appellant failed to exhaust his 
administrative remedies by failing to attend the Board hearing, and as such is not 
entitled to seek judicial review of the merits of his case pursuant to title 19, section 
3322(a) of the Delaware Code. This provision of the Code provides that "judicial 
review [of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision] ... shall be 
permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted all 
administrative remedies as provided by this chapter." 

3. This Court has previously held in Griffin v. Daimler Chrysler,1 that 
"‘[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a 
remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be sought by 
exhausting this remedy before the courts will act.’" It is only after the administrative 
process has been completed that a court may review the claim.3 Title 19, section 3320 
of the Delaware Code provides that the final administrative remedy for the Appellant 
is a hearing before the Board. As the Appellant did not appear at the Board hearing, 
he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the Court lacks jurisdiction 
to review the merits of the case.4 An appellant may not simply decide to bypass the 
administrative board and proceed to judicial review,5 and his failure to participate at 
the hearing forfeits his appellate rights to this Court. 

4. The Court finds that Appellant failed to exhaust his administrative 
remedies and as such his appeal must be denied. For the foregoing reasons, the 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.