IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
Michael J. McGonigle, ) 
Claimant/Appellant ) 
) 
) C.A., No., 00A-09-001-RSG 
v. ) 
) 
) 
George H. Burns, Inc. ) 
Employer/Appelle ) 
and ) 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD ) 
Submitted: April 3, 2001 
Decided: September 4, 2001 
Opinion and Order 
Decision Below Reversed and Remanded 
Michael J. McGonigle, Pro Se, Bear, Delaware, for the 
Claimant/Appellant, Michael J. McGonigle. 
Richard D. Abrams, Esq., Heckler & Frabizzio, Wilmington, Delaware, 
for the Employer/Appellee, George H. Burns, Inc. 
GEBELEIN, J. 

INTRODUCTION: 

The Superior Court must ensure that government agencies, such as the 
Unemployment Compensation Appeals Board, ("Agency"), follow the statutes that 
provide their authority. All agency processes, findings, determinations, and decisions 
(collectively "Agency Actions") are governed by the principles of due process found in 
the United States and Delaware Constitutions. 

In this case, the court does not find that there is substantial evidence needed to 
uphold the Agency’s decision, the Agency Action violated Claimant’s due process rights 
available to him to have an intelligent, expeditious appellate review. 

II. Scope and Standard of Review 

Standard of Review 

It is well established law that the court can only decide an appeal on the record below.  
The Court may not expand the record to include other evidence, such as, additional records, 
testimony, etc. The role of the Court in reviewing Agency Actions is limited to determining 
whether the Agency’s Action is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. 

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance.4 In the absence of an 
error of law, the Court will affirm an Agency Action which is supported by substantial 
evidence.5 In reviewing the record for substantial evidence, the Court will consider the record in 
the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. 
 
Jurisdiction 

The Court will lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice of appeal is not 
filed in a timely manner unless a Claimant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice 
of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.7 Likewise, the Court can remand a case to a 
government Agency for the purpose of determing whether the untimeliness of a Claimant’s 
notice of appeal is attributable to Agency-related personnel.

Due Process of Law 

In any appeal of an Agency Action, the Court must assure that the Agency Action meets 
the constitutional requirements, of due process, i.e., procedural due process of law. Procedural 
due process requires that "parties whose rights are to affected are entitled to be heard; and in 
order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified."9 Parties must be adequately, 
properly, and lawfully notified of Agency Actions that affect or will affect their rights, 
privileges, and immunities. It is equally fundamental that the right to notice must be granted at 
a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Therefore, when an Agency gives the required 
notice of an intention to affect a party’s rights, privileges, or immunities, the Agency must do so 
in a meaningful manner. The notice at a minimum must inform the Party of what action is 
intended by the Agency.
 
II Facts and Merits of Claimant’s Appeal 

1 Pro Se Claimants 

Claimant is a pro se Claimant; the Court is at liberty to reasonably interpret a pro se 
Claimant’s filings, pleadings, and appeals in a favorable light to alleviate the technical 
inaccuracies typical in many pro se legal arguments, without unfairly affecting the other party’s 
rights. While procedural requirements are not relaxed for any type of litigant (barring 
extraordinary circumstances or to prevent substantial injustice), the Court may grant pro se 
Claimants accommodations that do not affect the substantive rights of those parties involved in a 
case at bar. As such, the Court has construed Claimant’s appeal to sound in failure to provide 
"meaningful notice" and failure to comply with "procedural due process."
 
2 Facts 

Employer alleged, and the Agency found, that Claimant was verbally warned on 
several occasions for not making calls to customers and leaving early from off-site jobs. It was 
also found by the Agency, Claimant would indicate that he worked eight hour days when he had 
not. Employer alleged, and the Agency found, that the violations of employer’s regulations were 
supported by customer complaints. Ultimately, Claimant’s violations of Employer’s regulations 
resulted in his dismissal. Claimant had filed for unemployment insurance benefits on May 21, 
2000.

Claimant alleged that he did not receive any past oral or other warnings prior to his 
dismissal about being paid for work not actually completed. He also alleged that he requested to 
be temporarily relieved of working in a hot attic. 

The Claims Deputy in his "Notice of Determination" only set forth the competing claims 
of both parties in the "Findings of Fact" section. The Claims Deputy then proceeded to write, 
"Misconduct connected with the work is just cause for discharge [and] unsatisfactory 
performance that includes misconduct is disqualifying..." for the receipt of unemployment 
insurance benefits. While the Claims Deputy did not provide a reasoned determination as to why 
he chose to believe Employer’s allegations over those of the Employee if indeed he did so, that 
issue need not be addressed. 

The Court will address the merits of Claimant’s appeal claiming that the Agency failed to 
give meaningful notice of Claimant’s right to appeal the above Agency Acton because it failed to 
properly address the notice sent to the Claimant. 

3 Merits 

Claimant makes a simple argument. He is entitled to notice of an Agency Action in a 
meaningful manner that comports with the constitutional requirements of procedural due 
process. The Court finds that the Claimant’s correct address is "3 Vincent Court, Bear, 
Delaware, 19701."14 However, the notice of appeal of denial of unemployment insurance 
compensation benefits set to Claimant (including the statutory maximum number of days 
Claimant may appeal) was addressed to "3 Vincent Court, Waterford Apts., Bear, DE 19701- 
0000."

While the addition of four zeros to Claimant’s ZIP code would not substantially create an 
improperly constructed postal address, the addition of "Waterford Apts" is however, a 
substantially different address from the Claimant’s correct address.16 
Typically, an apartment complex has a single street address which is then followed by 
letters or numbers that identify specific units. An apartment complex can contain hundreds of 
specifically identified units. 

The substantially improper postal address used by the Agency in light of the fact that the 
Claimant provided the Agency with his proper address is, as a matter of law, a failure to provide 
meaningful notice consistent with procedural due process. Therefore, because the Agency 
addressed the notice of denial and the corresponding notice of a right to appeal in a substantially 
improper fashion, the Agency’s decision to affirm the decision of the Claims Referee must be 
reversed and remanded so that the appeal may be heard. The law favors a decision based upon 
the merits, not on a procedural defect. This is especially true when short time limits are imposed 
and postal service is used. 

The Court cannot conclude that defendant lives in an apartment complex on the record 
presented; there is some indication that the Claimant may actually live in a mobile home 
community.

Employer asserts that "In Delaware, there is a presumption that mailed matter, correctly 
addressed, stamped[,] and mailed was received by the party whom it was addressed.17 Employer 
is correct as to the law stated.18 Employer relies on the decision in Funk v. Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board in which an allegedly similar issue was raised. In Funk the Agency 
mailed a decision to a correct address, but the post office mistakenly delivered the decision to the 
Claimant’s parent’s home.19 The Supreme Court of Delaware held that the post office mistake 
did not interfere with the procedural due process concerning the appeal time limitation because 
the parent’s home was on the same street as the Claimant’s home.20 The Supreme Court further 
held that Agencies are not liable when a mailing fails to reach a Claimant because of a mistake 
committed by the post office and not the Agency.21 However, the Funk decision does not help 
the Employer in this case. 

Funk states that when notices are correctly addressed and properly post paid, Claimants 
are deemed to have received the notice irrespective of post office mistake. In this case, the 
notice went to the Claimant at bar was not properly addressed by the Agency. Consequently, the 
Agency failed to send a properly addressed notice to the Claimant. Claimant cannot be held 
responsible for the error of the Agency when the Claimant had provided the Agency with his 
correct mailing address. 

Conclusion and Order 

Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is 
REVERSED and REMANDED to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board with 
instructions to further remand the case to the Claims Referee (or the Agency’s proper designee) 
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion and Order. Specifically, the Claims 
Referee (or the Agency’s proper designee) shall accept and hear the appeal of the June 13, 2000, 
"Notice of Determination" denying Claimant Unemployment Insurance Compensation Benefits 
as timely filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
_____________________________ 
The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein 
DATE: September 4, 2001 
Orig: Prothonotary 
cc: Michael McGonigle, Claimant/Appellant 
Richard D. Abrams, Esq., Employer/Appellee