IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 
CLARENCE D. TATMAN ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 03A-04-002 HDR 
) 
DELAWARE HOME ) 
MAINTENANCE ) 
C/O JOHN SHOCKLEY, ) 
AND UIAB ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
Submitted: September 25, 2003 
Decided: December 12, 2003 
Clarence D. Tatman, Dover, Delaware, pro se. 
John F. Shockley, Millsboro, Delaware, pro se. 
Joseph A. Julian, Jr., UIAB, Appeals Referee. 
Upon Appeal from a Decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 
AFFIRMED 
RIDGELY, President Judge 

Tatman v. Del. Home Maintenance, et al. and The UIAB 
03A-04-002 HDR 
December 12, 2003 

In this case petitioner Clarence D. Tatman appeals a decision by the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("UIAB" or "Board") that denied him 
unemployment benefits. Opposing the petition is Tatman’s former employer, 
Delaware Home Maintenance and Property Services ("DHM"), and the company’s 
owner, John F. Shockley. Although Tatman was absent from the appeal hearing, the 
Board was warranted in proceeding without him because Tatman waived his right to 
participate. Because the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free of 
legal error, it must be affirmed. 

I. 

From August to November 2002, DHM employed Tatman as a landscaper. 
Because he had no other means of transportation, Shockley’s father picked up Tatman 
each morning for further assignment. On November 22, however, Tatman did not 
arrive for work. Although the parties continue to dispute the reasons surrounding his 
absence, both agree Tatman has not worked for DHM since. 

Contending he was fired without just cause, Tatman filed a claim with the 
UIAB, and a hearing was held before the Appeals Referee ("Referee") on February 
10, 2003. After considering the parties’ testimony, the Referee found that Shockley 
had not approached Tatman to offer additional employment. Therefore, the Referee 
concluded that Tatman was terminated without just cause, and was thus eligible for 
unemployment benefits. Shockley then appealed to the full Board. 

On March 19, 2003, the Board held a hearing on the appeal. Tatman, had been 
properly notified, but failed to appear. The Board waited over ten minutes, conducted 
a search of the premises for him, and then proceeded in his absence. During the 
hearing, Shockley testified that he had called Tatman several times to discuss 
continuing his employment, all to no avail. The Board credited Shockley’s 
statements, and found that Tatman had voluntarily abandoned his employment. 
Accordingly, the Board reversed the decision of the Referee and denied benefits. 
This appeal followed. 

II. 
 
This Court’s role in reviewing a decision of the UIAB is to determine 
whether the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from 
legal error. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 
might accept as adequate to support a particular conclusion. When supported by this 
requisite evidentiary standard, the UIAB’s findings are conclusive, with judicial 
review limited only to questions of law. It is within the discretion of the Board, not 
the Court, to weigh the credib ility of witnesses and resolve conflicting testimony. 

After considering the conflicting testimony, the UIAB credited Shockley’s 
statements. Specifically, the Board found that Shockley "continued to offer claimant 
work, but claimant failed to return calls or try to contact his employer " Tatman 
therefore "voluntarily terminated his own employment by abandoning his job." In 
addition to Shockley’s live testimony, the Board examined the record adopted by the 
Referee, which included Tatman’s own statements. Tatman admits he was contacted 
by Shockley, but disputes the Board’s finding that Shockley continued to offer him 
work. 

Here, the Board considered the record developed by the Referee, and heard 
testimony from Shockley, Tatman’s direct supervisor. The Board also received 
undisputed evidence that Tatman and Shockley spoke several days after Tatman’s 
initial absence. Shockley testified that he has continued to offer job opportunities to 
Tatman; the Board deemed this statement adequate in light of the facts developed by 
the Referee. The UIAB’s finding that Tatman voluntarily abandoned his job is 
supported by substantial evidence and is therefore conclusive. 

III. 

Even if the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court 
must ensure it is free from legal error. Tatman contends that his absence from the 
UIAB hearing was justified and warrants additional review by this Court. 
Specifically, Tatman claims he was absent because he was attending a job interview 
mandated by the state Department of Employment and Training. Moreover, Tatman 
contends that he attempted to reach the hearing on time, but was delayed due to his 
reliance on public transportation. In response, Shockley questions why Tatman, 
aware of the hearing date and his inevitable conflict, did not seek to reschedule it. 

Under UIAB rules, all parties to an appeal must be present within ten minutes 
of the scheduled time.14 Otherwise, the delinquent party runs the risk of having the 
appeal heard in that party’s absence.15 Those who fail to make any appearance waive 
their right to participate in the hearing process.16 In addition, a party absent from the 
hearing may not renew factual claims on appeal to this Court.17 

Regardless of his intent, Tatman chose not to be present at the hearing, and 
made no attempt to contact the Board. Furthermore, before opening the hearing, the 
Board waited ten minutes for him to arrive. Because Tatman knowingly failed to 
appear, the Board was justified in proceeding without him. I find that, the UIAB’s 
decision is free from legal error. 

IV. 

Because the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal 
error, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying 
unemployment benefits to Clarence D. Tatman is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.