IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW C ASTLE COUNTY
MIC HAE L A. S INCL AIR, I NC., )
) Appe llant, )
) v. ) C.A. No.: 03A-09-00 7 JRJ
) DAVID E. RILEY , )
) Appellee, )
Date Submitted: April 1, 2004
Date Decided: Jul y 30, 2004
O R D E R On Appeal from the Decisi on of the Unemployment Ins urance Appeal Board.
Decision REVERSE D.
Michael R. Ippoli ti, Esquir e, 824 Market Stree t, Suite 412, P.O. Box 2284, Wilmington, DE 19899. Attorney for Appellant Michael A. Sinclair, Inc.
David E. Riley, 2 16 Oh io Ave nue, W ilmingto n, DE 19805 . Pro Se Appellee.
JURDE N, J.
1
See UIAB Record (Docket No 5) at 21.
2
Id. at 12.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id. at 30.
2
Upon conside ration of the briefs submitte d and th e record in this case , it appears to the Co urt that:
Factual and Procedur al Back ground 1. Appellant Michael A. Sinclair, Inc. (" Sinclair" or "Employer") appeals from a de cisi on of th e Unemplo yme nt I nsurance Appeal Board
("UIAB" or "Board") which grant ed une mploy ment b enef its to Dav id E. Riley ("Riley" or "Clai mant").
2. Sinclair initia lly e mploye d Riley as a comm ercial truck driver in November of 2001.
1
Individ uals wh o drive v ehicles w ith a gross weight over
10,000 pounds are requ ired to ha ve a M edical Ex aminer's Certificate ("MEC" or "Certificat e").
2
On A pril 9, 20 02, Riley under went a medical e xamination
for hi s MEC.
3
As a result of this examina tion, Ril ey was given a three-m onth
temporary certifi cation, rather tha n the standar d two-year cert ificat ion, and was a dvise d to see a physician to determine whether h e suffered from diabetes.
4
Riley was su bseque ntly diagn osed w it h diabetes i n May of 2002,
5
and his
certifi cation expired on July 9, 2002. Riley appl ied for a new Certi ficate, but was den ied. On or about July 30, 2002, Riley "parked the t ruck" and hi s
6
Id. at 22-23.
7
Id. at 4.
8
Id. at 23.
9
19 Del. C. $ 3315(3) provide s in pertinent par t:
An individual shall b e disqualified fo r benefits: (3) If the individual has refused to accept an offer of work f or which the individual is reasonably fitted . . . and the disqualification shall begin with the week in which the refusal occurred and shall continue for each week there after
until the individual has been employed in each of 4 subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned w ages in covere d employment equal to not less than 4 times the weekly benefit amount . . . . 10
See Notice of Determination, UIAB Record at 7-8.
3
employment with S inclair ended.
6
After briefly working elsewhere, Riley filed
a claim for unemp loymen t benefits w ith the Department of Labor on August 18, 200 2.
7
On August 30, 2002, Sinclai r tried t o rehire Ril ey for the same truc k
driver position , but Riley refused , allegedly b ecause h e could n ot obtain his MEC an d would be un able to perform the same truck-d riving duties.
8
3. In a Februa ry 4, 2 003 deci sion, the Cl aims Deputy determined that the Claimant was dis qualifie d from receivi ng benefits unde r 19 Del. C. $ 3 315(3)
9
because the medi cal documentat ion provided by t he Claimant
"show ed no m edical restr iction that w ould aff ect the Cla imant's jo b."
10
4. Riley appealed and an A ppeals R eferee af fir med. T h e Referee's decision states, in pe rtinent pa rt:
The issue in this case i s whether the clai mant refused a suitable offer of work. Clearly, there was an offer of work . This w ork w as identica l to what the claima nt h ad previousl y done for Sinclair. It i s also clear that
the claimant r efused this job. The questi on then is whether the work was sui table for the cla imant. A lthough the claima nt testified th at he is
11
See Referee's Decision, UIAB Record at 13.
12
Sinclair filed a mo tion for a rehea ring, claiming that it never rec eived notice of th e first
hearing. In an August 13, 2003 decision, the Board denied the Employ er's motion for a new hearing be cause it determin ed that notice of t he first hearing was properly mailed to the Employer's address of record and was not returned. See Board's August 13, 2003 Decision, UIAB Record at 67-68. 13
See Board's Decision, UIAB Record at 41-42.
14
See Board's Refusa l of Rehearing ( Docket No 1) at Exhibit A
.
15
See Notice of Appeal (Docket No 1) at 3.
16
See Appellant's Opening Brief ("Employer's Op. B rief") (Docket No 8) at 1.
4
unable to obtain ne w certif ication due to his diabe tes, he provi ded no medical documentation of this alle gation. In the absence of such evidence, this tri bunal cannot fi nd that the of fer of work was one for which the clai mant was not reasona bl y fitt ed. Having refuse d the position, it must be conc luded that he is disqual ified from bene fits by operation of t he above-cit ed statut e [19 Del. C. 3315(3) ].
11
5. On June 25, 2003, t he UIAB hel d a hearing aft er the Clai mant app ea led. Sinclair di d not attend t his hearing.
12
The Board reversed t he
Referee's decision bec ause the Clai mant provided docume ntation that he was diagnosed with diabetes. The Board found that the offer of another drivi ng position was not a suitable offer of work because Riley's dia betes restr icted his ability to obtai n t he necessary certifi cation that would permit him to drive.
13
The Board decision be came final on Sept ember 7, 2003.
14
6. On September 17, 2003 the Em ployer tim ely filed an initi al appeal of the Board decision to this Court.
15
On January 27, 2004 the Employer filed
the Appellant's Opening Brief.
16
On F ebruary 27, 200 4 a Delin quent Brie f
Notice was sent to the Claimant, warni ng that an answeri ng brief needed t o be
17
See Final Delinquent Brief Notice (Docket No10) at 1.
18
Id.
19
K-Mart v. Bowles , C.A. No. 94A-10-007, 1995 Del. Super. LEXIS 175 (Mar. 23, 1995)
(citing 29 Del. C $ 10142(d); Johnson v. Chrysler Corp. , 213 A..2d 64 (Del. 1965)). 20
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Services , 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. Super. Ct. 1972).
21
Id.
5
filed or "the Court w ill decide th e issue on the pape rs whic h have b een filed if no further act ion of record is t aken within te n (10) days from the receipt of this notice."
17
Having received no r esponse from the Cl aimant, on March 25, 2004,
the Court o rdered a determin ation of th e is s ue on th e papers that wer e filed to that date.
18
Standard of R eview 7. In reviewing a deci sion on appeal f rom the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, this Co urt must determine i f the decis ion is supported
by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.
19
"'Substantial ev ide nce'
means such relevant evidence as a rea sonable m ind mig ht accept to s uppor t a conclus ion."
20
Absent an abuse of di scretion, this Cou rt must up hold the
Board's decision.
21
"Questions of c redibili ty are excl usively wit hin the
province of the Board which hea rd t he e vid enc e. A s an appellate court, it [is] not within the provi nce of the Superior Court to weigh the evidence, determine
22
Unemployment In s. Appeal Bd. v. Div . Of Unemploymen t Ins. , 803 A.2d 931, 937 ( Del.
2002). 23
Delgado v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal. Bd. , 295 A.2d 585 (Del. Super. 1972).
24
19 Del. C. $ 3315(8).
25
O'Neill v. Airborne Express , UIAB Hearing No. 135523 at 3 (August, 21 2000). See
Employer's Op. Brief at Tab 29.
6
questions of credib ility or mak e its own factual fin dings."
22
The Co u rt will
only reverse a dec ision of the Board if its findings are no t supported by substantial evidence , or where the Board has made a legal mistake.
23
Discussion 8. Under 19 Del. C. $ 33 15(8), claimants are disqual ified from unemployment benefits "[i]f i t shall be determined by t he Department that total or partial unemployment is due to the indi vidual's inabili ty to wor k. S uch disqualif ication [is] to termin ate whe n the ind ividual b ecomes able to work and available for wo rk as determined by a doctor's Certi ficate and meets all other requirem ents under this title."
24
"[W]hile the unemployment insurance fund is
a n emerg ency f und provi ded for those indiv idual s who have become unemployed through no fault of th eir own, the fund w as designed to assist individu als who are unemployed primar ily due to e conomic conditi ons. The
fund and the unemployment insurance system were not intended to be a disability o r illness ins urers."
25
26
See UIAB Record at 42 ("The Claimant has demonstrated that he has Ty pe II Diabetes
which restricted his ability to obtain proper certification to permit him to drive."). 27
Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107(e).
28
Hunter v. First USA /BANK ONE , C.A. No. 03 A-05- 005 P LA, 200 4 Del. Super . LEXIS
123 at *13 (April 15, 2004) .
7
9. Here, the Board found that because the Claim ant was medicall y unable to obtain a ME C, the C laimant w as no lon ger able to work as a licensed
truck driver.
26
However, the Board erre d in concluding t hat the only effect of
this was to prevent t he subsequent j ob offer from being a suitable offer for work. The B oard sh ould ha ve also co ncluded that this disa bility left the Cl aimant unable and unavai lable to work purs uant to 19 Del. C. $ 3315(8).
Consequently, it was an e rror of law for the Board to hol d that the Cl aimant was qualified to rec eive unem ployment benefi ts under the f acts in t he record.
10. As an alt ernat ive gr ounds fo r reve rsal , Dela ware Su perior Court Rule 107(e) states:
If any brief, me morandum, deposition, affidavit, or any other paper which is or
should be part of a case pending in this Court, is not served and filed within the time and in the manner required by these Rules or in accordance with any order of the Court or stipulation of counsel, the Court may in its discretion, d ismiss the proceeding if the plaintiff is in default, consider the motion as a bandoned, or summarily deny or grant the motion, such as the situation may present itself, or take such other action as it deems necessary to expedite the disposition of the case.
27
In Hunte r v. First U SA/Bank O NE , this Court found that "Rule 107(e) inextricab ly vests in the Court t he power t o rever se the Bo ard's de cision for failure of the Appellee to fil e its answ ering br ief."
28
Here, th e Cour t is
confronted with a fac tua ll y si mil ar c ase . As in Hunter , the Ap pellee w as duly 29
Although, in the Hunter case, there wa s a subsequent notif ication by c ertified mail, this
fai ls t o di sti ngui sh t hes e cas es b ecau se t hat add iti ona l no tif ica tio n wa s pr omp ted by a concern of a "s ignificant cle rical error [tha t] may have be en made in the maili ng process, potentially resulting in Appellee never receiving any type of notification of appeal." Id at *5. 30
Id at *18.
8
notified
29
and failed to explain his inactio n. A ccordin gly , "the Court has no
ot her alt ernative but to re verse the Bo ard's decision d ue to the Ap pellee's failure to d iligently pr osecute a nd file its b rief purs uant to R ule 107 (e)."
30
11. For the reasons s tated abov e, the deci sion of the Board t hat the Claimant is entitle d to benef its is not free from legal error and is t herefore REVERSED .
IT I S SO ORDERE D.
___________________________________ Jan R. Jurden, J udge