Carter v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services

Decision Date25 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 93A02-8802-EX-00056,93A02-8802-EX-00056
Citation526 N.E.2d 717
PartiesJohn R. CARTER, Claimant-Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES, John C. Mowrer, Joe A. Harris, and Nanette L. McDermott, as Members of the Review Board, and Barth Electric, Appellees.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Donald R. Lundberg, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., Indianapolis, for claimant-appellant.

Wayne O. Adams III, David J. Carr, Jeffery M. Mallamad, Bingham Summers Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, for appellees.

RATLIFF, Chief Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

John R. Carter appeals a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services denying his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

On August 24, 1987, John R. Carter filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits after he was discharged from Barth Electric. The claims deputy initially found that Carter had been discharged without just cause and was, therefore, eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Subsequent to this determination, Barth Electric filed an appeal. On October 21, 1987, Carter and Barth Electric were sent a notice of an appeals referee hearing setting the date of the evidentiary hearing for October 27, 1987. Carter claims he never received this notice. However, neither notice was returned to the sender.

On the date of the hearing, Barth Electric appeared, represented by counsel; Carter, however, was not present. The referee conducted a hearing in Carter's absence. On November 9, 1987, the referee issued a decision reversing the deputy's earlier determination and finding that Carter had been discharged for cause and was, therefore, ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Carter appealed from this determination on the basis that he had no notice of the hearing and consequently was unable to be in attendance and present evidence on his behalf. On December 14, 1987, the review board affirmed the referee's decision to deny Carter benefits without addressing Carter's claim of lack of notice. From this determination, Carter now appeals.

ISSUE

Did the review board abuse its discretion in affirming the referee's decision denying Carter unemployment compensation benefits in light of Carter's claim that he had never received notice of the evidentiary hearing conducted before the referee?

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The review board, while an administrative body, is vested with quasi-judicial powers. Therefore, due process must be accorded a party whose rights will be affected by a review board decision. Fruehauf Corp. v. Review Bd. (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1193, 1195. Due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to confront witnesses. Wakshlag v. Review Bd. (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1078, 1083. Admittedly, failure to receive notice does not necessarily indicate a deprivation of due process where "the system of jurisprudence with its provisions for safeguarding the rights of litigants is due process of law". Osborne v. Review Bd. (1978), 178 Ind.App. 22, 30, 381 N.E.2d 495, 500; quoting, Miedreich v. Lauenstein (1914), 232 U.S. 236, 246, 34 S.Ct. 309, 312, 58 L.Ed. 584, 590. In the present case however, Carter's alleged failure to receive notice is not the issue presenting a question of adequate due process. If that were the only issue at bar, clearly Osborne would be dispositive. It is uncontested that notice was sent to Carter; the only fact in dispute is whether or not Carter actually received notice of the evidentiary hearing. It is true that where an administrative agency does in fact send notice through the regular course of mail, a presumption arises that such notice is received. Osborne, 178 Ind.App. at 30, 381 N.E.2d at 500. However, to the extent that Osborne appears to make this presumption conclusive, we must disagree. See Indiana Code section 22-4-17-6; 640 I.A.C. 1-11-16. Due Process requires that one be afforded an opportunity to rebut this presumption.

Generally, the evidentiary hearing conducted before a referee affords the parties to an unemployment compensation claim due process of law and the review board on appeal is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Turner v. BOARD OF AVIATION COM'RS
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 14 février 2001
    ...that basis. Due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to confront witnesses. Carter v. Review Bd., 526 N.E.2d 717, 718 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988), trans. denied. Turner does not state whether he is seeking protection under the due process clause of the United State......
  • Value World Inc. Of Ind. v. Review Bd. Of The Ind. Dep't Of Workforce Dev.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 9 juin 2010
    ...Inc. v. Ind. Unemploy't Ins. Review Bd., 858 N.E.2d 115, 117 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citing Carter v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 526 N.E.2d 717, 719 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), trans. denied, and Abdirizak v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 826 N.E.2d ......
  • Art Hill, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 18 décembre 2008
    ...at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." NOW Courier, 871 N.E.2d at 387; see also Carter v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 526 N.E.2d 717, 718 (Ind. Ct.App.1988) ("Due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to confront w......
  • Klr Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Review Bd.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 7 décembre 2006
    ...through the regular course of mail, a presumption arises that such notice is received. Carter v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 526 N.E.2d 717, 719 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988), trans. denied. However, that presumption is rebuttable. Abdirizak v. Review Bd. of the Ind......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT