Schuster-Ayotte v. Dept. of Workforce Serv.

Annotate this Case
Schuster-Ayotte v. Department of Workforce Services. Filed March 18, 1999  
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Lena A. Schuster-Ayotte,
Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board;
and Salt Lake Brewing Company,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981838-CA

F I L E D
March 18, 1999 1999 UT App 085

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:  Lena A. Schuster-Ayotte, Murray, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Workforce Services

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Jackson.

PER CURIAM:

On July 6, 1998, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the April 27, 1998, decision of the department representative concluding that petitioner had been overpaid by $1,017.00 in unemployment benefits for the time period beginning March 15, 1998, and ending April 18, 1998. Petitioner did not attend the July 6, 1998, hearing or an earlier scheduled hearing on June 2, 1998, which she had requested to contest the April 27, 1998, determination.

Petitioner had seven days from July 6, 1998, to seek a new hearing or 30 days to appeal to the Appeals Board. See Utah R. Admin. P. R994-406-311(4)(a); Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-406(3)(e) (1997), -508(2)(e) (Supp. 1998). She did neither. In fact, petitioner never sought a new hearing and did not appeal the ALJ's July 6, 1998, decision to the Appeals Board until October 5, 1998, two months after the 30 day deadline. Since her appeal was late, the Appeals Board asked petitioner to demonstrate good cause as to why her appeal was late, but she failed to do so. As a result, the Board concluded that it was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of her appeal and thereby affirmed earlier decisions, including the determination that petitioner had been overpaid $1,017.00 in unemployment benefits.

We agree with the Board's determination. Absent a showing of good cause, which petitioner made no effort to do, the 30 day appeal period to the Appeals Board is jurisdictional. Accordingly, the November 19, 1998, decision of the Workforce Appeals Board is affirmed.
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge