James C. Henry v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CC-01132-COA
JAMES C. HENRY
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
6/5/2009
HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
CIRCUIT COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY
JAMES C. HENRY (PRO SE)
LEANNE F. BRADY
ALBERT B. WHITE
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY’S DENIAL OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND DETERMINATION THAT
CLAIMANT HAD ABANDONED HIS
APPEAL
AFFIRMED - 12/14/2010
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
James C. Henry, appearing pro se, appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of DeSoto
County affirming the Mississippi Department of Employment Security’s (MDES) denial of
his unemployment compensation benefits and dismissal of his case after a determination that
he had abandoned his appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
Henry was employed as a people greeter at Walmart for approximately four years
before being discharged on July 10, 2008. In support of his discharge, Walmart claimed he
had violated company policy prohibiting dishonesty by returning a DVD left by a customer
as if it were a DVD that he had purchased. Henry, however, maintained that he had
purchased the DVD with a friend, but the friend changed her mind and asked Henry to return
the DVD for a refund.
¶3.
Thereafter, Henry applied for unemployment benefits effective July 15, 2008. The
MDES investigated Henry’s application to determine his eligibility for the benefits requested.
The MDES ultimately concluded that Henry had made a fraudulent refund of the DVD in
question and, hence, had committed misconduct which disqualified him from receiving
unemployment benefits.
¶4.
Henry timely filed an appeal to the Board of Review of the MDES (Board). He was
mailed a Notice of Telephonic Hearing (Notice) on October 20, 2008, advising him that a
telephonic hearing regarding his appeal was scheduled to be held on October 31, 2008,
before an Administrative Judge (AJ) with the MDES. Included in the Notice was language
stating: “[I]f the appealing party is not available for the hearing, the appeal is dismissed and
the original determination upheld.”
¶5.
On the day of the telephonic hearing, the AJ attempted to contact Henry but was
unable to reach him at the number he had provided. The AJ left a voice-mail message
advising Henry he had a limited time in which to return the AJ’s call and participate in the
hearing. The record reflects that Henry did not return the call within the allotted amount of
2
time, and the AJ concluded that Henry had abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the AJ
dismissed Henry’s claim.
¶6.
Shortly thereafter, Henry appealed the AJ’s decision to the Board. In a Board of
Review Decision (Decision) dated December 23, 2008, the Board affirmed and adopted the
AJ’s findings that Henry’s workplace misconduct had disqualified him from receiving
unemployment benefits and that he had abandoned his appeal. Henry then appealed the
decision to the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, which affirmed the Board’s ruling on June
5, 2009. Henry now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
With regard to appeals of the Board’s decisions, Mississippi Code Annotated section
71-5-531 provides that the Board’s findings of fact are conclusive, subject to substantial
evidentiary support and absent any indication of fraud. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (Supp.
2009).1 Thus, appellate court jurisdiction over an MDES claim is confined to the review of
questions of law. Id. Additionally, there exists a rebuttable presumption in favor of
decisions of the Board, with the burden of proof lying with the challenging party. Allen v.
Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n., 639 So. 2d 904, 906 (Miss. 1994).
DISCUSSION
I.
Whether Henry Abandoned His Appeal by Failing to Contact the
Administrative Judge Conducting the Telephonic Hearing Within the
Required Amount of Time
1
Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-5-531 was repealed as of July 1, 2010, but
it was reenacted by the Mississippi legislature in the 2010 regular session without textual
change. Miss. Gen. Laws Ch. 559 § 44.
3
¶8.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-5-525 designates the MDES as its own rule-
making authority. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-525 (Supp. 2009). Accordingly, the MDES has
adopted Benefit Appeal Regulations (Regulations) which govern all MDES appeals. See,
e.g., Miss. Dep’t of Employment Sec. v. Johnson, 977 So. 2d 1273, 1276 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2008). The Regulations provide that appellants may be afforded a hearing on their
appeal and that notice of said hearing shall be executed by mail. Id. The Regulations further
stipulate that failure to appear and participate in an appellate hearing provides the Board with
ample authority to dismiss a claim under the theory of abandonment. Id.
¶9.
In this case, Henry was notified of the telephonic hearing by mail eleven days before
the hearing was to take place. Included in the Notice were the date and time of the hearing
and instructions of how to phone into the hearing should Henry fail to receive a telephone
call from the AJ. Also included in the Notice was language advising him that failure to
participate would constitute effective dismissal of his case and reinstatement of the Board’s
original Decision.
¶10.
MDES’s call-recording system shows Henry was called by the AJ at the date and time
listed in the Notice, but Henry did not answer the phone call. The record reflects that the AJ
left Henry a voice-mail message informing him he must return the AJ’s call within an allotted
amount of time in order to participate in the telephonic hearing. The MDES call-recording
system further shows that Henry returned the AJ’s call after the allotted amount of time had
expired. Accordingly, the AJ dismissed the case for Henry’s failure to participate.
¶11.
This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether the dismissal of an MDES
appeal is appropriate when the appealing party fails to participate in the appellate hearing.
4
Johnson, 977 So. 2d at 1276 (¶ 7). First, we have concluded that the adoption of the
Regulations by the MDES is well within the authority granted to the MDES by Mississippi
Code Annotated section 71-5-525. See, e.g., Id. at 1276 (¶ 6). Second, after reviewing the
applicable Regulations, we have determined that an appealing party’s failure to participate
in a scheduled hearing may properly be deemed abandonment of the appeal and, therefore,
grounds for dismissal. Id. at 1275-76 (¶ 6). Accordingly, we find that this issue lacks merit.
II.
¶12.
Whether Substantial Evidence may be Found in the Record to Support
the MDES Determination that Henry Had Committed Misconduct Such
That He Was Disqualified from Receiving Unemployment
Compensation Benefits
Because we affirm both the circuit court’s determination that Henry had abandoned
his appeal and the circuit court’s decision to allow for the Board’s original Decision to be
reinstated, we do not address the issue of whether the original Decision disqualifying him
from receiving unemployment benefits is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, this
issue is moot.
¶13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
5
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.