J.H. v. Review Board (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JEFFREY W. HODGES Indianapolis, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana PAMELA S. MORAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Oct 21 2010, 9:50 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA J.H., Appellant, vs. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court No. 93A02-1005-EX-607 APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT The Honorable Steven F. Bier, Chairperson The Honorable George H. Baker, Member and The Honorable Larry A. Dailey, Member Cause No. 10-R-2430 October 21, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN, Judge STATEMENT OF THE CASE J.H., pro se, appeals the dismissal of his appeal before the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the Review Board ). We affirm. ISSUE Whether the Review Board erred in dismissing J.H. s appeal. FACTS On or about October 7, 2009, J.H. s employer terminated his employment. J.H. subsequently applied for unemployment benefits with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the DWD ). On November 12, 2009, the DWD suspended J.H. s unemployment benefits after determining that he had been discharged for just cause. On November 20, 2009, J.H., proceeding pro se, filed an appeal of the DWD s determination. On March 18, 2010, the DWD held an evidentiary hearing, with an Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) presiding. determination on March 25, 2010. 2 The ALJ affirmed the DWD s On March 26, 2010, the DWD mailed a notice of the decision to J.H. The notice stated that the decision would become final unless the party receiving the adverse Decision appeals to the Review Board within eighteen (18) calendar days after the mailing date of this decision. (App. 2A). On April 29, 2010, J.H. appealed the ALJ s decision to the Review Board. On May 7, 2010, the Review Board dismissed J.H. s appeal as untimely and therefore did not reach the merits of his claim. DECISION J.H. asserts that the ALJ improperly determined that his employer terminated him for just cause. He, however, fails to address the dismissal of his appeal by the Review Board, which is dispositive.1 The time period for perfecting an appeal from an ALJ s determination is statutorily defined. Szymanski v. Review Bd. of Workforce Dev., 656 N.E.2d 290, 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Indiana Code section 22-4-17-3(b) provides that an ALJ s decision as to unemployment benefits shall be deemed to be the final decision of the review board, unless within fifteen (15) days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision, an appeal is taken . . . to the review board by any party adversely affected by the ALJ s decision. (Emphasis added). Indiana Code section 22-4-17-14(c) provides that if the notice is served through the United States mail, three days must be added to the time by which the appeal must be taken to the review board. Thus, a party seeking Although J.H. is proceeding pro se, we note that it has long been the rule in Indiana that pro se litigants without legal training are held to the same standard as trained counsel and are required to follow procedural rules. Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. 1 3 review of an ALJ s determination must file an appeal within eighteen days of the date the notice of the determination is mailed. Szymanski, 656 N.E.2d at 293. [S]trict compliance with th[is] requirement is a condition precedent to the acquiring of jurisdiction, and non-compliance with the requirement results in dismissal of the appeal. Id. The record in this case shows that the ALJ s decision was mailed on March 26, 2010. Thus, J.H. s appeal to the Review Board was due on April 13, 2010. J.H., however, did not file his appeal until April 29, 2010. Due to J.H. s untimely appeal, the Review Board did not have jurisdiction to review the ALJ s decision. We therefore find that the Review Board properly dismissed J.H. s appeal. Affirmed. BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
