BOARD OF APPEALS
|DECISION NO: 1682-BR-93
DATE: October 7, 1993
|CLAIMANT: Peter Robinson
|| APPEAL NO.: 9313882
||L.O. NO: 8
Issue: Whether the claimant failed to file proper claims for
benefits within the meaning of §8-901 of the Labor and Employment Article.
- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -
YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR BALTIMORE CITY OR ONE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS IN A COUNTY
IN MARYLAND. THE COURT RULES ABOUT HOW TO APPEAL CAN BE
FOUND IN MANY PUBLIC LIBRARIES, IN THE ANNOTATED CODE
OF MARYLAND, MARYLAND RULES, VOLUME 2, B RULES.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES November 6, 1993.
|For the Claimant:
|| For the Employer:
REVIEW ON THE RECORD
Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals reverses
the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
The claimant mailed a claim card for the weeks ending May 29, 1993
and June 5, 1993, on June 18, 1993. The claimant had temporarily
misplaced the card and when he found it, he called the
local office and asked if he could file the card in person.
The claimant was informed that the local office could
not accept the card and that it would have to be mailed.
Therefore, the claimant mailed the card to the Baltimore
office. The last date to file the card was June 21, 1993.
Had the claimant been allowed to file the card in person,
there is no doubt that it would have been timely. However,
he was given no choice by the agency but to take his chances with the mail.
There is no documentary evidence in the record regarding when the
card was received by the agency. The agency witness testified
that the card was not received until June 22, 1993 and
that it was therefore late. The agency subsequently closed
the claimant's claim and did not reopen it until he reported
to his local office on July 9, 1993.
The Board finds that the claimant filed his claim card for the weeks
ending May 29, 1993 and June 5, 1993 in a timely manner.
First, there is no documentary evidence that the claim
card was received late. However, the claimant credibly
testified that he mailed it on June 18, 1993 and the Hearing
Examiner found this as a fact. If a finding of fact is
made that a claimant mailed his claim card on a certain
date, there is a presumption that it was delivered and
received promptly thereafter in the ordinary course of
business. Davis, 707-BR91. It is reasonable to presume
that a card mailed on June 18, 1993 from Annapolis was
received in Baltimore on June 21, 1993.
Second, and equally important in this easer is the fact that the agency
left the claimant no alternative but to mail his claim
card to Baltimore. Granted, it was the claimant's misplacement
of his claim card that originated this problem. However,
on June 18, 1993, still clearly within the time period
for filing the claim, he found the card and was willing
to personally deliver it to the agency, in order to insure
it's timely receipt. The agency, however, would not allow
him to do this, insisting that he mail the card. At that
point, the claimant did all that a reasonable person could
be expected to do.
Therefore, the Board finds that the claimant s claim card for the
weeks ending May 29, 1993 and June 5, 1993 was timely
filed. Since that claim card was timely, sequential claims
are therefore continued claims within the meaning of the
regulations, and they may be filed by mail within the
16 day grace period. Dombroski, 177-BR-91. The claim cards
for the weeks ending June 12, 1993 through the week ending
July 3, 1993 were therefore also timely filed.
The claimant filed timely claims, within the meaning of §8-901
of the Labor and Employment Article, for the weeks ending
May 29, 1993 through July 3, 1993.
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.
Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Thomas W. Keech, Chairman
COPIES MAILED TO:
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - ANNAPOLIS