IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 

AUGUSTINE DIMKPA, : 
Appellant, : 
v. : 
CHIMES, DISTRICT OF : COLUMBIA, : 
Appellee. : 

Submitted: March 10, 2008 
Decided: June 30, 2008 

ORDER 

Upon an Appeal of the Decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 

Affirmed. 

Augustine Dimkpa, pro se. 

WITHAM, R.J. 

Augustine Dimkpa v. Chimes 

C.A. NO. 07A-08-004 WLW 
June 30, 2008 

Appellant Augustine Dimkpa ("Appellant") (claimant-below) was employed 
at Chimes, District of Columbia ("Chimes") as a custodian at the Dover Air Force 
Base when he became injured. He took his available twelve weeks of Family Medical 
Leave from November 1, 2006 to January 23, 2007. On January 24, 2007, Appellant 
did not return to work. On that same day, Chimes assumed that he voluntarily 
abandoned his job and sent him a letter explaining that they could not hold open his 
position. 

He filed a claim with the Delaware Department of Labor, Division of 
Unemployment Insurance ("the Division") who found that he was terminated unjustly 
and is therefore not disqualified from benefits pursuant to 19 Delaware Code § 
3314(2).1 The Decision stated that benefits were to continue for each week Appellant 
met the requirement of 19 Delaware Code § 3315.2 That determination became final 
on May 17, 2007. 

In determining eligibility, the Division found that Appellant’s doctor’s 
certificate indicated that Appellant was unable to work until April 1, 2007.3 They 
found that Appellant has four years of experience as a custodian and has experience 
as a secretary, but due to his injury he has paralysis in his fingers and is unable to 
type. They found that he has never answered phones before but is able to file. 
Therefore, he is unavailable for work because he has no skills that can accommodate 
his current restrictions. Pursuant to 19 Delaware Code § 3315(3), claimant must be 
able to, available for, and be actively seeking work to be eligible. The Division 
determined Appellant ineligible for receipt of benefits starting the week of April 21, 
2007.4 That determination also became final on May 17, 2007. 

Appellant was in the local unemployment office on June 4, 2007, to drop off 
paperwork including a certificate from his doctor indicating that he cannot work 
again until July 7, 2007, when he was told he needed to file an appeal. He filed an 
appeal that day, which was denied on June 15 for lack of timeliness. The 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB" or "Board") reviewed the decision 
on August 15, 2007 and found that the Division correctly held that Appellant’s late 
appeal of the claims deputy’s decision constitutes a jurisdictional bar to further 
proceedings in the matter.5 

Appellant appeals the decision to this Court. In his appeal, he asserts that he 
was mentally too depressed to take action on the appeal, but does not provide 
evidence in support of his position. 

Standard of Review 

The scope of review for an appeal of a UIAB decision is limited to examining 
the record for errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence is present 
on the record to support the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.6 

Substantial evidence equates to "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 
accept as adequate to support a conclusion."7 On appeal, this Court will not weigh 
the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.8 
Instead, this Court reviews the case to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient 
to support the Board’s factual findings.9 

Discussion 

The UIAB’s jurisdiction to hear appeals is statutory.10 Nineteen Delaware 
Code § 3318(c) provides 

(c) Unless the appeal is withdrawn, an appeals tribunal, after affording 
the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify 
or reverse the decision of the deputy. The parties shall be duly notified 
of the tribunal’s decision, together with its reason therefor, which shall 
be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification 
or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated pursuant to § 3320 
of this title.11 

Appellant missed the statutory deadline and therefore his appeal was correctly 
dismissed. 

The UIAB can skirt the jurisdictional requirements in severe cases,12 but this 
case does not rise to that level. In Appellant’s appeal to this Court, he acknowledges 
receipt of the decision and asserts that during the ten-day time period, he was 
mentally depressed and did not realize the time limitations or the appeal process. 
Unfortunately, the ten-day period is statutory. Having found no error of law, this 
Court finds further that there is substantial evidence that Appellant missed the 
statutory deadline. 

Conclusion 

The decision of the Board is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.