Gaskins v. District Unemployment Compensation Bd., 7194.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7194.,7194. |
| Parties | George GASKINS, Sr., Petitioner, v. DISTRICT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Alan D. Wiener, Law Student, appointed by the court, with whom Dudley R. Williams, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner.
Russell L. Carter, Washington, D. C., with whom George A. Ross and Bill L. Smith, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before KELLY and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges, and QUINN, Associate Judge, retired.
Petitioner seeks review from a final decision of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board. That decision affirmed a dismissal of petitioner's administrative appeal from a determination that he received benefits to which he was not entitled.
For a number of weeks during the summer of 1971, petitioner Gaskins was a recipient of unemployment compensation benefits. Some fourteen months later, on October 24, 1972, a tentative determination that he was overpaid $146.00 because of unreported earnings during two of those weeks was mailed to his home. The notice stated that the determination would be final unless a request for redetermination of appeal was filed in 10 days. On November 6, 1972, Gaskins sought to appeal the determination. The Appeals Examiner dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the 10-day appeal period as set out in D.C.Code 1973, § 46-311(b).1 On February 6, 1973, the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeals Examiner, setting forth its Proposed Findings of Fact and Decision, while again indicating that claimant had 10 days in which to note any objection thereto.
On February 15, 1973, claimant filed a timely appeal of that decision in which he explained to the Board that his initial failure to file his appeal within the prescribed time period was due to an uncommon occurrence in his household — the recent death of petitioner's wife. He further stated that the October 24 letter containing the tentative determination arrived in the aftermath of this family tragedy and was inadvertently left unopened, along with other mail. The date it was finally opened, November 6, 1972, was the day the appeal was filed. Despite these understandable reasons, the Board affirmed the Appeals Examiner's decision on February 20, 1973. In so doing the Board made a twofold finding. First, it reiterated the fact that claimant did not file a timely appeal. In addition, it was stated that after giving due consideration to Gaskins' plea, the Board was of the opinion that he had "failed to state a reasonable excuse for failing to respond to the determination within the allotted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. Dist. of Col. Dept. of Emp. Serv.
...958 (D.C. 1984); Worrell v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 382 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1978); Gaskins v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 315 A.2d 567, 568 (D.C. 1974). We have never held, however, that this court has no jurisdiction over a petition by a claimant who has f......
-
Hilliard v. Adecco Usa, Inc.
...to hear the appeal." Lundahl v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 596 A.2d 1001 (D.C. 1991) (citing cases); Gaskins v. District Unemployment Comp. Bd., 315 A.2d 567 (D.C.1974) (no jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal even where notice of claims determination was received by appellant ......
- Momenian v. Davidson
-
Wright-Taylor v. Howard University Hosp., No. 07-AA-1173.
...that an appeal from an initial determination must be filed within ten days of the mailing of notice of the determination. See Gaskins, supra note 3, 315 A.2d at 568. The Office of Administrative Hearings Establishment Act of 2001 calls on OAH to perform the administrative review conducted f......