West v. Q&D Trucking, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. STOKES 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 SUSSEX C OUN TY C OUR THO USE GEOR GETO WN , DE 19947 JUDGE October 14, 2009 Cherilyn West 306 Atlantic Avenue Salisbury, MD 21804 Q & D Trucking Quenton Wilkerson Attn: Personnel 321 E. 6 th Street Laurel, DE 19956 RE: West v. Q & D Trucking and the Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board C. A. No. 09A-02-002-RFS Dear Ms. West and Mr. Wilkerson: Pending before me is Claimant Cherilyn West s appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ( Board ) affirming a referee s decision finding Claimant to be ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Board determined that Claimant s appeal was untimely filed pursuant to the ten-day limit set forth in 19 Del. C. § 3318( c ).1 The Board has discretion to enforce the ten-day time limit when a claimant fails to file her appeal within the statutory time frame, fails to show evidence of an error by the Department of Labor regarding the mailing, and does not present evidence of any severe 1 Section 3318( c ) states in part: The parties shall be duly notified of the tribunal s decision, together with its reason therefor, which shall be deemed to be final unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated pursuant to § 3320 of this title. circumstance which would have prevented docketing a timely appeal, 2 The Board also has discretion to hear an untimely appeal sua sponte pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320. This is warranted if the lateness of the filing can be traced to an error on the part of the Board or if the claimant offers a serious and credible excuse for the late filing.3 In this situation, the Court s scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board abused its discretion in refusing to hear the untimely appeal rather than reaching the merits of the underlying decision.4 The referee s decision plainly states on the cover page that the last day to file an appeal was December 19, 2008. Ms. West s appeal was postmarked December 31, 2008. She does not dispute these facts or attempt to explain them in any way. She has not attributed her lateness to an error on the part of the Department of Labor. She has not offered an excuse sufficient to warrant a sua sponte exercise of the Board s jurisdiction. On these facts, I find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in adhering to the ten-day deadline for filing an appeal of a referee s decision. For these reasons, the Board s decision is Affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, Richard F. Stokes 2 Morra v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2004 WL 1965825 (Del. Super.). 3 Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415 (Del. Super.). 4 Cooke v. Boscovs, 2008 WL 1726053 (Del. Super.)(citing Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991)). cc: Prothonotary
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.
