Automated Summary
Key Facts
Tarekegn Desta was determined ineligible for unemployment benefits from March 2020 to March 2021 due to failure to submit valid work authorization under C.R.S. 8-73-107(1)(h). The Division mailed a determination notice on March 21, 2022, with an appeal deadline of April 11, 2022. Desta filed a late appeal in November 2024, over 30 months past the deadline. The Panel dismissed the appeal under Regulation 12.1.3.2, which bars appeals over 180 days late, finding no reason to depart from the regulation despite his claim of misunderstanding the notice.
Issues
The primary issue addressed was whether the Panel correctly dismissed Tarekegn Desta's appeal as untimely under the 180-day rule (Dep't of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2). The court affirmed the Panel's decision, concluding the appeal was over 180 days late and no good cause existed for excusing the delay. The analysis focused on the statutory and regulatory requirements for timely appeals and the Panel's factual findings regarding notice and deadlines.
Holdings
- The court concluded that the Panel's application of Department of Labor and Employment Regulation 12.1.3.2 was correct, as the notice of determination provided clear appeal instructions and was delivered to Desta's address and electronic account, with no evidence of non-receipt or uncontrollable delay.
- The court affirmed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's decision to dismiss Tarekegn Desta's appeal as untimely, holding that an appeal filed more than 180 days after notification is not excusable under the applicable regulation, regardless of good cause.
Remedies
The court affirmed the Panel's order dismissing Desta's administrative appeal for being over 180 days late, finding no good cause shown for the delay. The decision upholds the original determination of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to lack of valid work authorization.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the Literal Rule in interpreting the regulation requiring dismissal of appeals over 180 days late, enforcing the plain language without exception despite the claimant's arguments about the overpayment calculation.
- The court affirmed the Panel's decision under the standard of judicial review, concluding it was not erroneous as a matter of law and supported by the record. The review was limited to whether the Panel correctly applied the 180-day late appeal regulation.
Precedent Name
- Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off.
- Dep't of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc.
- Huddy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off.
Cited Statute
Colorado Revised Statutes
Judge Name
- Judge Freyre
- Judge Meirink
- Judge Gomez
Passage Text
- However, if an appeal is more than 180 days late, good cause may not be established, a hearing shall not be scheduled, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the deputy's decision shall become final.
- Under that statute, we may set aside the Panel's decision only if (1) the Panel acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact don't support the decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law.
- In this unemployment compensation benefits case, Tarekegn Desta appeals a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) affirming a hearing officer's dismissal of his administrative appeal as untimely. We affirm the Panel's order.