IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY 
JACK LASSITER,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY C. MITCHELL,
Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Upon an Appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 

Affirmed. 

Submitted: May 31, 2007 
Decided: August 6, 2007 
Pro Se Plaintiff. 
Pro Se D efendant. 
STOKES, Judge

This is my decision on Jack Lassiter’s (“Claimant”) appeal of a decision by the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Board”). On August 23, 2006 the Board dismissed 
Claimant’s appeal for failure to prosecute. The Court affirms the Board’s decision for the reasons 
stated herein. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

From the scant information provided to the Court, it appears that Claimant was employed by 
Randy C. Mitchell of Randy C. Mitchell Painting, Inc. (“Employer”) for a period of time nearing two 
years. The parties disagree as to whether or not Claimant was injured while performing his job. 
There is further uncertainty with respect to the amount of time Claimant was absent from work. 
The Board scheduled a hearing on the matter for August 23, 2006 and notified the parties 
accordingly. Claimant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Upon motion, the Board dismissed 
the matter. 

DISCUSSION 

Judicial review of a Board’s finding “shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be 
aggrieved thereby has exhausted all administrative remedies.” 19 Del. C. § 3322(a). A hearing 
before the Board is the final administrative remedy. See 19 Del. C. §3320. When an appellant fails 
to appear before the Board, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because the 
Appellant did not exhaust all administrative remedies by not presenting his case to the Board.” 
Griffin v. Daimler Chrysler & Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 156, at *5 
(Del. Super. Apr. 27, 2001). 

Claimant’s appeal is directed at the merits of the case and not the propriety of the Board’s 
dismissal. The legitimacy of a parties claim is left to the determination of the Board. Claimant’s 
failure to appear before the Board deprived that body of the opportunity to address the factual 
underpinnings presently disputed. Claimant has offered no explanation to the Board, or to this Court 
regarding the failure to appear other than the following statement found in the parties Opening Brief: 
“[t]he only reason that it has come to this is because I missed the hearing on 6-26-2006.” 

This Court is without jurisdiction to consider the sufficiency of the factual contentions. See 
Harris v. Mountaire Farms, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 438 (Del. Super. July 16, 2003). The Board 
had reasonable grounds for the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute based upon Claimant’s 
unexcused absence from the hearing. The Board did not abuse its discretion in doing so. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 
___________________________