IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY MARSHA PURDIE-MORRIS, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Appellee. ORDER This 10th day of April, 2006, upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the record below, it appears that: 1. Marsha Purdie-Morris (“Claimant”) appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“UIAB”), which dismissed her appeal as untimely. The UIAB also found no evidence of an error on the part of the Department of Labor (“Department”), which might have caused a delay in Claimant’s notice of Department’s decision. 2. On July 11, 2005, Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, after she was terminated from her position at the Telemon Corporation as a center aid. A Claims Deputy conducted a fact-finding interview on behalf of the Department, and denied Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy’s denial was based on Claimant’s status as a full-time student, and Claimant’s admission that she would refuse a work opportunity that conflicted with her school schedule. 3. Claimant filed a timely appeal from the Claims Deputy’s decision, and a hearing before an Appeals Referee was held on September 1, 2005. The Referee affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits, due to the limitations caused by her school schedule. However, the Referee modified the decision, and awarded Claimant benefits for the three weeks in August 2005, when Claimant was between semesters, and not attending school. During the hearing, the Referee advised Claimant that she would issue an opinion in a few weeks, and would mail the decision to Claimant’s Beechwood Avenue address.1 The Referee also advised Claimant that her right to appeal the decision would be detailed on the front cover of the Referee’s decision.2 4. The Referee’s decision was issued and mailed to Claimant on September 2, 2005. The cover page of the decision specifically advised Claimant that the last day to file an appeal was September 12, 2005. Claimant did not file an appeal until September 14, 2005. Accordingly, the UIAB denied Claimant’s appeal from the decision of the Referee, because it was untimely. The effective date of the UIAB’s decision was November 14, 2005. On November 23, 2005, Claimant made a timely appeal to this Court. 5. On appeal, this Court’s review from a decision of the UIAB is to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.3 Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”4 In addition, substantial evidence is "more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance . . . "5 If the UIAB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court “must affirm the ruling unless it identifies an abuse of discretion or a clear error of law.”6 6. Because the UIAB’s decision was based on the untimeliness of Claimant’s appeal, this Court’s review on appeal is twofold.7 The Court must determine (1) whether there are facts to support the finding that the appeal was untimely, and (2) “whether the Board abused its discretion by not exercising, sua sponte, its power to review the record for an injustice despite the untimely appeal.”8 A claimant has ten (10) calendar days from the date that the Claims Deputy’s determination was mailed to file a timely appeal.9 The Claims Deputy’s determination will be deemed final, if the claimant fails to file an appeal within the statutory deadline.10 7. Under Delaware law, a mailing that contains the correct address and sufficient postage is presumed to have been received by the intended claimant.11 The claimant’s “mere denial of receipt of the notice is insufficient to rebut this presumption.”12 Although the UIAB cannot accept jurisdiction, if the appeal is not filed in a timely fashion,13 Section 3320 grants the UIAB the authority to act sua sponte, and consider an appeal that has not been filed validly.14 The UIAB’s discretion to assume jurisdiction over an untimely appeal is warranted if the late filing was caused by a UIAB error, or if the claimant “proffers an excuse which could warrant the UIAB’s sua sponte exercise of jurisdiction.”15 Absent a UIAB error, however, this Court has held that “the mere assertion that one did not receive the decision is not a sufficient reason for the UIAB to assert jurisdiction of an untimely appeal.”16 8. In the present appeal, Claimant argues that she did not receive the decision of the Claims Deputy until after deadline for filing an appeal had passed. Claimant maintains that she found the decision, which purportedly had been opened by someone else, between her doors on September 14, 2005. Claimant states that she went to the Unemployment Office, and was advised that, despite the fact that the deadline had passed, she could file a timely appeal. Claimant does not allege that the address on the envelope was incorrect, nor that the Department caused her to receive the decision after the appeal deadline. Claimant’s assertion that she did not receive the properly addressed decision of the Claims Deputy is not a compelling basis for reversing the decision of the UIAB17. The Appeals Board properly decided that Claimant’s late appeal was jurisdictional barred. Upon review of the record, this Court is satisfied that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly denied Claimant’s untimely appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the UIAB is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.