Hudgins v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 25 March 2016 |
Docket Number | NO. 2014-CA-002089-MR,2014-CA-002089-MR |
Parties | EARL T. HUDGINS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, KENTUCKY DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND NALLY & HAYDON SURFACING, LLC APPELLEES |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT
By Opinion and Order entered October 30, 2014, the Taylor Circuit Court affirmed the Unemployment Commission's dismissal of Appellant Earl T. Hudgins's administrative appeal as untimely. Having reviewed the record, we agree with Taylor Circuit Court that the appeal was untimely. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Earl T Hudgins ("Hudgins") has worked as a paver for Nally & Haydon Surfacing, LLC for more than twenty-two years. Annually, during the winter months, due to weather conditions, Hudgins was laid off work. During those periods of being laid off, Hudgins would draw unemployment benefits.
On January 31, 2014, Hudgins received a letter from the Office of Employment and Training, Division of Unemployment Insurance, ("Letter"). In pertinent part, the Letter stated:
According to Hudgins, he went to the Campbellsville unemployment office on February 17, 2014, to obtain "assistance" in filing his appeal. There Hudgins met with Kim Bailey ("Bailey"), an employee of the Campbellsville unemployment office, Division of Unemployment ("Division"). Hudgins indicated that Bailey advised him that the Division would deduct the overpayment from future unemployment payments and that he would not need to file an appeal. According to Hudgins, he relied on this information and did not file an appeal on February 17, 2014.
On February 18, 2014, Hudgins returned to the Campbellsville unemployment office. After allegedly speaking to another employee, who notified him that he should have filed his appeal on February 17, 2014, Hudgins filed an untimely Request for Appeal. On March 17, 2014, a Referee dismissed Hudgins's appeal as untimely since it was filed beyond the fifteen-day appeal deadline as required by KRS1 341.420(2).
Following the decision of the Referee, on March 19, 2014, Hudgins filed an appeal with the Kentucky Unemployment Commission ("Commission"). The Commission affirmed the decision of the Referee on April 15, 2014. On May 2,2014, Hudgins filed a complaint in the Taylor Circuit Court seeking judicial review of the Commission's Order. On October 30, 2014, by Opinion and Order, the Taylor Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's dismissal of Hudgins's administrative appeal finding it untimely. Hudgins filed a motion for reconsideration, which was overruled on December 8, 2014.
This appeal followed.
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 437 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Ky. 1969) (citing Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards, 365 S.W.2d 299 (Ky. 1962)). Substantial evidence is evidence which has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people. Kentucky State Racing Comm'n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972). If there is substantial evidence in the record to support an agency's findings, the findings will be upheld, even though there may be conflicting evidence in the record. Kentucky Comm'n on Human Rights v. Fraser, 625 S.W.2d 852, 856 (Ky. 1981). An agency's findings are clearly erroneous if arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. If the reviewing court concludes the rule of law was correctlyapplied to facts supported by substantial evidence, the final order of the agency must be affirmed." Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. Cecil, 381 S.W.3d 238, 245-46 (Ky. 2012).
On appeal, Hudgins maintains that the trial court committed reversible error when it affirmed the Commission and dismissed his claim as untimely. Specifically, Hudgins argues that the Commission is equitably estopped from dismissing his appeal for untimeliness due to Bailey's alleged misrepresentations.
We begin with KRS 341.420. It provides:
It is undisputed that the Unemployment Office's letter to Hudgins is dated January 31, 2014. Moreover, Hudgins admits receiving the letter in a timelymanner. Hudgins's argument for equitable tolling is based upon Bailey's alleged statement to him that he did not need to file an appeal. Based on Bailey's statements, Hudgins asserts that the Commission should be estopped from relying on the fifteen-day time limit set forth in KRS 341.420(2).
In this case, the Referee found the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial