This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C7-00-1411

 

 

Arthur Haywood,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Industrial Molded Rubber,

Respondent,

 

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed May 8, 2000

Affirmed

Halbrooks, Judge

 

Department of Economic Security

File No. 396100

 

 

Arthur Haywood, 5814 Nicollet Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419 (relator pro se)

 

Industrial Molded Rubber Products, Inc., 15600 Medina Road, Minneapolis, MN 55447 (respondent)

 

Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent commissioner)

 

 

 

            Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

            A representative of the Commissioner of Economic Security determined that there was no jurisdiction over relator’s appeal from the decision of the reemployment compensation judge because the appeal was untimely.  Because we conclude that relator’s appeal was not timely filed, we affirm. 

FACTS

            Relator Arthur Haywood was terminated by respondent Industrial Molded Rubber on December 6, 1999, for repeated unexcused absences from work.  Relator filed a claim for reemployment compensation benefits with the Minnesota Department of Economic Security on March 12, 2000. 

An adjudicator from the department determined that relator’s discharge was based on employee misconduct, and mailed its Determination of Disqualification to relator on March 30, 2000.  Relator claims that he received the notice on or about April 10 or 15, 2000.  The Determination of Disqualification advised relator that the determination would become final “unless an appeal [was] filed in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of mailing * * * .”  If mailed, the filing date is the postmarked date.  The 30th calendar day in this instance was April 29, 2000.  But because it fell on a Saturday, the deadline for filing the appeal was Monday, May 1, 2000.  The Determination of Disqualification also explained this deadline adjustment. 

            Relator filed his written appeal from the determination on May 2, 2000.  A reemployment compensation judge conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning the timeliness of the appeal.  The appeal was ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not timely.  Relator appealed to the commissioner.  The commissioner’s representative conducted review proceedings and affirmed the reemployment compensation judge’s dismissal for late filing.  Relator timely filed a petition for certiorari review of this determination. 

D E C I S I O N

            On appeal, this court reviews the decision of the commissioner’s representative, not the decision of the reemployment compensation judge.  Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Bd., 563 N.W.2d 275, 276 (Minn. App. 1997).  While we defer to the commissioner’s findings of fact if they are reasonably supported by the evidence in the record, we exercise independent judgment with respect to questions of law.  Ress v. Abbott NW Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). 

            Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2000), provides in relevant part:

            A determination of disqualification or a determination of nondisqualification shall be final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or notified employer within 30 calendar days after mailing.  The determination shall contain a prominent statement indicating the consequences of not appealing. 

 

Relator acknowledged receipt of his Determination of Disqualification, which clearly states the 30-day time limitation established by Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f).  Relator nevertheless filed his appeal one day late. 

Relator seeks to excuse missing the deadline by emphasizing that he did not receive the disqualification notice until as late as April 15, 2000.  It is well-settled, however, that the time limitation for appealing a decision from the Department of Economic Security is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.  See Andstrom v. Willmar Reg’l Treatment Ctr., 512 N.W.2d 117, 118 (Minn. App. 1994) (time limit for appealing from a department determination is jurisdictional and must be strictly construed); Management Five, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training, 485 N.W.2d 323, 324 (Minn. App. 1992) (same); Johnson v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr., 395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (“[T]he time for appeal from a Department determination is absolute and there are no provisions for extensions or exceptions”); Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn. App. 1984) (“There is no provision for extensions or exceptions” to the time for appeal from a department determination). 

            Relator’s appeal was not filed within 30 days as defined in Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f), and was, therefore, untimely.  The commissioner’s representative correctly determined that there was no jurisdiction over relator’s appeal.

            Affirmed