This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Kris T. Scheller,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed August 7, 2007
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 1100806
Kris T. Scheller,
Lee B. Nelson, Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Muehlberg, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
This is a certiorari appeal from a decision of the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Relator challenges the DEED decision dismissing his request for reconsideration of the appeal of his ineligibility determination. Because his request for reconsideration was untimely, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Relator Kris T. Scheller challenges the denial of his request for reconsideration. In May 2006, DEED issued a determination of disqualification after finding that Scheller was discharged from respondent Cragun Corporation for employment misconduct in February 2006. Scheller filed an appeal with DEED in August 2006. On August 29, a DEED unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissed the appeal as untimely because it was filed after the 30-day appeal period established by Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(e) (Supp. 2005).
Scheller then filed a request for reconsideration on September 29. The ULJ dismissed the request as untimely because September 29 was 31 days after the decision was filed and, therefore, not within the 30-day time period for reconsideration of an appeal established by Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a) (Supp. 2005). Scheller subsequently petitioned for certiorari review in this court, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7 (Supp. 2005).
On review, this court may affirm a ULJ’s decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision “if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced” because the ULJ’s findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are:
(1) in violation of constitutional provisions;
(2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the department;
(3) made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) affected by other error of law;
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious.
Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d). An agency’s decision to
dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law that we review de novo. Kennedy
v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 739 (Minn. App.
2006) (citing Harms v. Oak Meadows,
619 N.W.2d 201, 202 (
Scheller’s arguments, however, exceed the jurisdictional issue and are not addressed to the issue before the court. He argues that he timely filed his appeal of the May decision and that the reasons his employer supplied for his termination are inaccurate. But at this stage in the proceedings, the court’s review is limited to whether the ULJ erred by denying his September request for reconsideration.
Here, Scheller filed his request for reconsideration on September 29, 2006. This is 31 days after the date of the order and outside the 30-day reconsideration period authorized by Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a). Therefore, the ULJ correctly applied the law by dismissing Scheller’s request as untimely.
* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.