Majority upholds dismissal of unemployment benefits appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a woman’s appeal after she was denied unemployment benefits should be reinstated. The woman claimed she missed the administrative law judge’s phone call because of confusion regarding different time zones.

S.S. appealed the denial of her unemployment benefits and a telephonic hearing was set. S.S. lives in Hammond and the administrative law judge was in Indianapolis. The notice she received said her hearing would be at 9:15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time and that the ALJ would call all the parties. The notice also gave instructions regarding different time zones in Indiana and said it's S.S.’s responsibility to know which time zone she is in and when the hearing will take place.

S.S. missed the ALJ’s call because she was in a federal building attending a food stamp hearing and believed the hearing was set for 10:15 a.m. Central Standard Time. Her appeal was dismissed, and her request for reinstatement was denied by the appeals director and the review board.

Chief Judge Margret Robb and Judge Patricia Riley affirmed in S.S. v. Review Board, No. 93A02-1006-EX-738. They concluded that S.S. was afforded due process and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. They also held there weren’t any errors in the review board’s consideration of evidence or its denial of her request to reinstate her appeal. They noted she could have asked that the ALJ change the date or time of the unemployment hearing so she could attend both the food stamp and unemployment hearing, but she did not. The majority also decided that she wasn’t denied a reasonable opportunity to participate in a hearing even if she was confused by the time zones.

The majority also noted concern regarding the lack of statutory or regulatory authority governing the grant or denial of reinstatement of a Department of Workforce Development administrative appeal. The appeals director’s order cited a regulation that expired on Jan. 1, 2009, and hasn’t been readopted, wrote Chief Judge Robb. The review board’s appellate brief includes DWD Policy 2008-28, but that has not been promulgated as a rule.

“Absent authority in the statutes specifically governing the DWD, or in its properly promulgated regulations, there is simply no statutory or regulatory authority governing, among other things, the grant or denial of a request for reinstatement. Especially given that this issue is likely to recur with some frequency, we urge the DWD to promulgate an applicable rule. If the DWD fails to do so, then the legislature may need to take corrective action to fill this legal gap,” she wrote.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented, focusing on the review board’s denial of S.S.’s request for reinstatement. She believed S.S. timely filed her request as opposed to the arguments of the appeals director and review board that she filed it too early or too late.

“Plausible arguments about due process aside, and looking at the total picture, we have before us the situation of a stressed-out, financially strapped, unemployed woman who made the very common mistake of confusing the time for her hearing to be an hour later rather than an hour earlier than the stated time given the time zone she was in, a mistake made every day by those who must negotiate the two time zones existing among the various counties of Indiana,” she wrote.

She noted S.S.'s appeal may or may not have merit, but all she wants is to have the appeal heard.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues