IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

DEOBRAH L. GEORGE ) 
 Appellant, ) 
v. ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, ) 
Appellee. ) 
 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD 

AFFIRMED 

 

Submitted: August 18, 2008 
Decided: September 9, 2008 


This 9th day of September, 2008, upon consideration of the appeal of 
Deborah L. George ("George") from the decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board") ordering repayment of benefits 
wrongfully received, it appears to the Court that: 

 1. George filed an unemployment insurance claim on June 3, 
2007. On the basis of that claim, George received $73 per week for the 
weeks ending June 9, 2007 through October 13, 2007.1 At the time her 
claim was filed, George signed the required Form UC-410 acknowledging 
her obligation to repay all unemployment benefits disbursed during a 
disqualification period if a claims deputy, appeals referee, the Board, or a 
court later determined her to be subject to disqualification.2 

 2. George was contacted by Caldwell Staffing on September 7, 
2007, regarding a position with the Boy Scouts of America ("the Boy 
Scouts"). George denies that she was ever formally offered a position,3 but 
nevertheless expressed to Caldwell Staffing that she would refuse 
employment with the Boy Scouts. George apparently told Caldwell Staffing 
personnel that the Boy Scouts "supported the war," and that the Boy Scouts’ 
pro-war stance would conflict with her religious beliefs.4 Caldwell Staffing 
conducted an Internet search that revealed no indications the Boy Scouts had 
taken a position on war efforts.5 

3. Subsequently, Caldwell Staffing informed the Department of 
Labor ("DOL") that George had refused assignments. On November 6, 
2007, a DOL Claims Deputy issued a determination that George was 
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, effective for the week 
ending September 8, 2007, for refusing to accept an offer of suitable work.6 
The Notice of Determination indicated that George’s disqualification would 
be used to establish an overpayment and further provided that the 
determination would become final unless appealed by November 16, 2007.7 
George did not appeal. 

 4. On December 21, 2007, a DOL Claims Deputy issued a 
determination that George had received $438 in overpaid benefits, or $73 for 
the six weeks from September 8, 2007 to October 13, 2007.8 George timely 
appealed this determination, but having failed to challenge her 
disqualification in the first place, her efforts to argue that there was no 
overpayment were unavailing. At a hearing before an Appeals Referee on 
January 22, 2008, George testified as to her religious objections to the Boy 
Scouts, her claims that she had never received a job offer, and her history of 
medical and emotional problems, which she said prevented her from 
appealing her disqualification.9 This testimony was presented over repeated 
cautions from the Appeals Referee that the substantive merits of George’s 
disqualification were not at issue, because the disqualification had already 
become final.10 The Appeals Referee found that there had been a benefits 
overpayment.11 George timely appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision, and 
the Board affirmed.12 

5. The Appeals Referee stated in his findings of fact that George 
"suffered medically and was emotionally incapable of responding to 
decisions mailed" in reference to George’s failure to appeal her 
disqualification.13 While the Board’s decision noted George’s objections to 
her disqualification and her contention that she was unable to timely appeal 
the original ineligibility decision. The Board affirmed the overpayment, 
finding "no evidence of error on the part of the [DOL] which might have 
delayed claimant’s appeal of the initial determination, at which time she 
could have made her factual arguments."14 

6. George filed a pro se appeal of the Board’s decision to this 
Court on April 24, 2008.15 In her brief, George continues to argue the 
substantive merits of her disqualification, reiterating her claims that she 
could not have declined a position with the Boy Scouts because she never 
received a formal offer and that she did not appeal her disqualification as a 
result of medical and emotional problems.16 George’s brief does not raise 
any challenges to the overpayment distinct from her arguments regarding the 
unappealed disqualification, nor are any separate arguments specific to the 
overpayment determination found in the record below.17 The Board did not 
submit a brief in this matter.18 

7. This Court’s appellate review of decisions of the Board is 
limited. The Court’s function is to determine whether the Board’s findings 
and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free from legal 
error.19 The substantial evidence standard is satisfied if the Board’s ruling is 
supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion."20 The Court does not weigh evidence, 
decide questions of credibility, or engage in fact-finding in reviewing a 
Board decision.21 Where the Board has made a discretionary decision, the 
scope of the Court’s inquiry includes examining the Board’s action for abuse 
of discretion.22 A discretionary decision will be upheld absent an abuse of 
discretion2324 

8. Under 19 Del. C. § 3318(b), a Claims Deputy’s determination 
that an individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits 
becomes final if no appeal is filed within ten days.25 This ten-day period is 
"an express statutory condition of jurisdiction that is both mandatory and 
dispositive."26 Where a failure to timely appeal is due to "unintentional or 
accidental actions" by the claimant, and was not caused by administrative 
error, the disqualification becomes final after the running of the ten days and 
19 Del. C. § 3318(b) operates as a jurisdictional bar to further appeal.27 

9. In this case, the Board’s decision to affirm the overpayment 
determination was supported by substantial evidence. As the Board 
correctly noted, George never contested that she received the benefits at 
issue and never appealed the determination that she was disqualified from 
receiving them based upon a refusal to accept suitable work.28 George was 
notified of the ten-day appeals period at the time she was determined to be 
disqualified29 and did not initiate an appeal. Although the Appeals Referee 
permitted George to offer testimony regarding the disqualification and her 
failure to appeal that decision in order to clarify the history of her claim, this 
information is irrelevant to George’s appeal from the overpayment 
determination. The Board therefore properly held that George did not 
exhaust her administrative remedies in challenging her disqualification by 
appealing to an Appeals Referee, and was barred from doing so by the 
running of the appeals period.30 

10. To the extent that George’s Opening Brief continues to press 
arguments regarding the merits of her disqualification and her failure to 
appeal that decision, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider those 
arguments because of George’s failure to exhaust her administrative 
remedies.31 An appeal from an overpayment determination cannot be made 
into a vehicle to challenge the merits of a finalized disqualification decision 
when the claimant has failed to perfect an appeal from that disqualification. 

11. Where a disqualification has become final, the only issues for 
this Court upon review of the Board’s overpayment determination are 
whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the 
overpayment was sought from the correct individual and that the amount of 
overpayment was accurately assessed.32 George does not dispute her receipt 
of the benefits or the computation of the overpayment amount, and the 
record clearly supports that George was responsible for the overpayment, 
that she received notification of it, and that the amount of overpayment was 
accurately assessed in the Board’s decision.33 

12. The Board’s refusal to assume jurisdiction sua sponte to 
consider the merits of the disqualification determination was not an abuse of 
discretion. The Board lacks authority to hear an appeal brought by a party 
after the ten-day appeals period under 19 Del. C. § 3318(b).34 Where no 
valid timely appeal has been filed, however, the Board possesses discretion 
under § 3320 to review the record sua sponte if the failure to timely appeal 
was caused by administrative error or if "the interests of justice would not be 
served by inaction."35 Cases in which the Board assumes jurisdiction sua 

13. Here, the Board’s refusal to consider the merits of George’s 
disqualification sua sponte was within its discretion. George’s failure to 
timely appeal was not caused by administrative error. It is highly unlikely 
that George’s alleged physical and emotional conditions, for which she did 
not provide corroboration at the hearing before the Appeals Referee, would 
have constituted good cause for failing to timely appeal her 
disqualification,37 particularly when she was able to timely appeal the 
overpayment determination. The circumstances were not extraordinary or 
"severe" such that the Board was required to act in the interests of justice.38 
The Board therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to assume 
jurisdiction sua sponte to consider George’s substantive arguments 
regarding her disqualification. 

14. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is hereby 
AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.