Donaldson v. State Dept. of Indus. Relations

Decision Date20 July 1983
Citation439 So.2d 1301
PartiesGene B. DONALDSON v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. Civ. 3525.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Alice L. Anderson, Enterprise, for appellant.

George Cocoris, Gen. Counsel and Frank Marsh, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Montgomery, for appellee.

EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, Retired Circuit Judge.

This is an unemployment compensation case.

Mr. Donaldson (the claimant) promptly applied for unemployment compensation benefits when his employment ceased with Enterprise State Junior College (the employer). A claims examiner for the Department of Industrial Relations (the department) determined on June 6, 1979, that the claimant was entitled to receive compensation. The employer was not mailed a copy of or notice of that determination until June 18, 1979. On June 19, 1979, the employer wrote to the benefits supervisor of the department that the claimant was self-employed. That letter was construed by the department to be an appeal from the determination of the claims examiner to an appeals referee. On October 7, 1979, after a prior hearing, the referee determined that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits in that he was then self-employed and had been since he filed his claim. Notice was provided at the bottom of the referee's decision as follows: "THIS DECISION MAILED October 9, 1979 BECOMES FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS RECEIVED AT THE LOCAL CLAIMS OFFICE OR AGENCY ADDRESS ABOVE BY October 24, 1979." The claimant's attorney gave notice of appeal by a letter dated October 29, 1979, which was received by the department on October 30, 1979. The Board of Appeals (the board) affirmed the decision of the referee on January 18, 1980, and the parties were given notice of the board's opinion on the same date. No appeal to the circuit court was ever taken by anyone from the January 18, 1980 determination of the board.

On June 26, 1980, the department sued the claimant to recoup the $1,440 which was paid to the claimant for unemployment benefits during the period while he was not entitled thereto because of his self-employment. The circuit court rendered judgment in favor of the department and against the claimant for the amount sued for. The claimant appeals. We affirm.

As his first issue, the claimant contends that the employer's letter of June 19, 1979 was insufficient to constitute an appeal. The statute states that unless a party shall "within 15 calendar days after such notice was mailed to his last known address, file an appeal from such decision, such decision shall be deemed final." § 25-4-91(e)(1), Code 1975 (Suppl.1983). Particularity in pleading is not required as to such appeals. This is just and fair because laymen, both employers and claimants, ordinarily represent themselves [at this stage in unemployment compensation proceedings]. It has been held that, in case of an appeal to the circuit court from a determination by the board, "[A]ll that need be stated is that the decision of the Board is incorrect under the facts or the law." Department of Industrial Relations v. Jaco, 337 So.2d 374 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). That was true even though the statute for such appeals to the circuit court provides that the notice of appeal shall state the grounds upon which a review is sought. § 25-4-95, Code 1975. In the present controversy, the provisions of § 25-4-91(e)(1) simply require the filing of a timely appeal.

Here, the employer's letter was directed to the department's "Benefits Supervisor," not to the fraud investigation section of the department. That letter stated that the employer had received notice of the determination that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment compensation and that "[I]t is our understanding that Mr. Donaldson owns and works at Wiregrass Art Center in Enterprise, Alabama."

An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for any week in which he is self-employed and each week thereafter until he establishes that he is no longer self-employed. § 25-4-78(11), Code 1975 (Supp.1983). Thus, the letter, in legal substance, stated that the claimant was then ineligible to receive such benefits and that the decision of the claims examiner was in error. An appeal can be duly taken under § 25-4-91(e)(1), supra, by simply identifying the claim, stating the party taking the appeal, writing the words "we appeal" thereon and timely filing it with the department. The method or procedure for taking an appeal under that code section is not detailed therein. The magic word "appeal" need not appear in such a writing, although, without it, an interpretation of the entire instrument must be made to determine the intent of the party in filing the document. Here the letter was more specific than statutorily required, for it stated the alleged reason for the claimant's ineligibility. The letter was sufficient to "file an appeal" as is required by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hilley v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 30, 1999
    ...the notice of appeal to state merely that the Board's decision was incorrect under the facts or the law. Donaldson v. State Dep't of Indus. Relations, 439 So.2d 1301 (Ala. Civ.App.1983). Thus, the ground stated by GM was Hilley also argues that GM's notice of appeal was not filed in the cou......
  • Ash v. Washington
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 17, 2021
    ...letter as an application for leave to appeal the denial of her unemployment-compensation claim. See Donaldson v. State Dep't of Indus. Rels., 439 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983) (rejecting an argument that a letter "was insufficient to constitute an appeal" and concluding that "[p]a......
  • Heatherly v. Benton
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • October 23, 1985
    ...benefits. Caradine v. Director, Department of Industrial Relations, 456 So.2d 75 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Donaldson v. State Department of Industrial Relations, 439 So.2d 1301 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Cargill v. State, Department of Industrial Relations, 428 So.2d 62 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). In each case ......
  • Powers, In re
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • March 23, 1988
    ...and, without a specific objection as to hearsay, that ground cannot be reviewed on appeal. Donaldson v. State Department of Industrial Relations, 439 So.2d 1301, 1304 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). Therefore, the attorney could not have preserved the hearsay evidentiary issue as a ground of review und......

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