Bryant v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 01 July 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-0846-MR
• Parties: TONY BRYANT APPELLANT v. KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY APPELLEES
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

TONY BRYANT APPELLANT v. KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY APPELLEES

No. 2021-CA-0846-MR

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

July 1, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE JOHN D. SIMCOE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-CI-00260

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Douglas E. Miller Radcliff, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION Joshua R. Hurley Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY: L. Jay Gilbert Louisville, Kentucky

BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND MAZE, JUDGES.

OPINION

COMBS JUDGE

Appellant Tony Bryant (Bryant), appeals from an order of the Hardin Circuit Court affirming a decision of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission). The Commission found that Bryant is disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected to his work. After our review, we vacate the order of the Hardin Circuit Court and dismiss this appeal for the reasons set forth below.

Bryant worked as a human resource assistant for the Department of the Army's Civilian Human Resources Agency at Fort Knox, Kentucky. His job duties entailed processing applications for benefits for military widows in the Army's Survivor Benefits Program. Bryant was fired for borrowing money from one of the widows in the program. Bryant subsequently filed a claim with the Kentucky Office of Unemployment Insurance, which determined that he was disqualified to receive benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with the work. Bryant appealed. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Referee affirmed.

Bryant appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the Referee's decision on April 28, 2020.

Bryant then sought judicial review pursuant to KRS^[1] 341.450(1), which provides as follows:

Except as provided in KRS 341.460, within twenty (20) days after the date of the decision of the commission, any party aggrieved thereby may, after exhausting his remedies before the commission, secure judicial review thereof by filing a complaint against the commission in the Circuit Court of the county in which the claimant was last employed by a subject employer whose reserve account or reimbursing employer account is affected by such claims. Any other party to the proceeding before the commission shall be made a defendant in such action. The complaint shall state fully the grounds upon which review is sought, assign all errors relied on, and shall be verified by the plaintiff or his attorney. The plaintiff shall furnish copies thereof for each defendant to the commission, which shall deliver one (1) copy to each defendant.

(Emphasis added.)

Although Bryant was last employed by the Department of the Army in Hardin County, he filed his complaint in Meade Circuit Court.^[2] On June 16, 2020, the Commission and the Department of the Army, now Appellees, jointly filed a response and contended that Bryant had failed to strictly comply with KRS 341.450(1) by failing to file his complaint in the proper court within the requisite time -- an error which was fatal to his appeal pursuant to the statute. On January 13, 2021, the Meade Circuit Court entered an order transferring the action "to Hardin Circuit Court, the appropriate venue."

The Hardin Circuit Court proceeded to decide the case on its merits and affirmed the Commission's ruling by order entered June 24, 2021.

On July 23, 2021, Bryant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Bryant again argues that his actions did not constitute misconduct. If this case were properly before us, we would affirm the Commission's ruling without hesitation based upon our review of the record. However, we cannot reach the merits. We agree with the Commission that Bryant's complaint should have been dismissed by the Meade Circuit Court for lack of jurisdiction.

In his reply brief, Bryant contends that the Commission's jurisdictional argument was not preserved. However, it is well settled that "jurisdiction may be raised by the parties or the court at any time and cannot be waived. Moreover, the issue may be raised for the first time on appeal." Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. J.T.G., 301 S.W.3d 35, 39 (Ky. App. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

KRS 341.450(1) required that Bryant secure judicial review by filing a complaint in the circuit court of the county where he was last employed within 20 days after the date of the Commission's decision. Bryant failed to comply with this statutory prerequisite by filing his complaint in Meade Circuit Court rather than Hardin Circuit Court. Therefore, Meade Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction ab initio to consider Bryant's appeal.

"It is a firmly rooted concept of law in this state that the courts have no jurisdiction over an appeal from an administrative agency action unless every statutory precondition is satisfied." Taylor v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 382 S.W.3d 826, 831 (Ky. 2012).

As a general rule, "[t]here is no appeal to the courts from an action of an administrative agency as a matter of right.

When grace to appeal is granted by statute, a strict compliance with its terms is required." Board of Adjustments of City of Richmond v. Flood, 581 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Ky. 1978) (citations omitted). Statutory preconditions for vesting courts with the authority to engage in judicial review cannot be satisfied by substantial compliance. See City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Ky. 1990) ("It is only [when defects are nonjurisdictional in nature] that a discussion of substantial compliance . . . is appropriate."). Consequently, at least with respect to the jurisdictional requirements for invoking judicial review of an administrative agency ruling, we have no substantial compliance exception to a statute which grants the right to appeal. See Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Carter, 689 S.W.2d 360, 361-362 (Ky. 1985).

Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Wilson, 528 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Ky. 2017) (emphasis added).

We agree with the Commission that the Meade Circuit Court's...