Donald R. Schindler, Petitioner
v.
Utah Department
of Workforce Services, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Donald R. Schindler, Salt Lake City, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3).

Petitioner Schindler's base period for determining his eligibility for unemployment benefits in Utah was from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1998. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-201(1) (1997). This base period included Schindler's thirteen days of New York employment, from July 1, 1997, to July 13, 1997. This period was also used by New York "as the basis of a monetary determination which established a benefit year" when Schindler made his unemployment claim in that state prior to moving to Utah. 20 C.F.R. § 616.9(b)(1) (2000). Since both the federal regulations and Utah statutes make clear that the use of duplicate wages and employment in determining a combined-wage claim is not allowed, Schindler could not claim those New York wages as part of his claim. See id.; Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-106(1)(b)(ii)(B) (1997) ("avoiding the duplicate use of wages and employment of such combining"). With no wages to transfer from New York, that state is not a "transferring state" under the regulatory scheme and thus there was simply no combined-wage claim to be made. See Brockel v. Department of Employment Sec., 674 P.2d 98, 99 (Utah 1983) (holding that state with no wages or employment to transfer to Utah is not "transferring state" as defined by provisions now found in 20 C.F.R. § 616 and thus there is no "combined wage" claim). Therefore, the Workplace Appeals Board correctly denied Schindler's combined-wage claim.⁽¹⁾

Schindler's challenge to the constitutionality of the federal regulations and state statutes that govern combined-wage claims is made here for the first time. "The appellate courts of this state have consistently refused to address issues, even those implicating constitutional rights, that are raised for the first time here on appeal." In re E.D., 876 P.2d 397, 401 (Utah Ct. App), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994). This rule applies with equal force to the rulings of administrative agencies in that failure to raise "all issues that could have been presented" before the state administrative agency is deemed a waiver of those issues, and they cannot be presented for the first time before an appellate court. Pease v. Industrial Comm'n, 694 P.2d 613, 616 (Utah 1984). Accord Ashcroft v. Industrial Comm'n, 855 P.2d 267, 268 (Utah Ct. App.), cert. denied, 868 P.2d 95 (Utah 1993). Accordingly, we are not in a position to address the merits of petitioner's constitutional challenge.