Dorr v. IDOL, 520 P.3d 1266

Dorr filed two PUA claims (March and August 2020). IDOL approved the August claim with a benefit-year begin date of August 2, 2020; Dorr asked IDOL to backdate to March and accept late weekly claims. IDOL denied the backdate request.
Dorr appealed. IDOL scheduled a telephonic hearing for Feb. 22, 2021 and mailed a Notice listing the hearing time in Mountain Time (bold) and Pacific Time (nonbold), instructing parties to adjust for their time zone.
Dorr, who lived in the Pacific Time Zone, did not appear at the scheduled time and called about 43 minutes late; the appeals examiner dismissed her appeal for failure to participate and gave her an opportunity to request reopening.
Dorr promptly requested reopening, explaining she erred about the time zone and cited poor eyesight; the appeals examiner denied reopening, concluding the Notice was correct and Dorr’s failure to account for the time difference was not good cause.
The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed the denial (de novo review), finding the Notice timely and not misleading and characterizing Dorr’s error as negligence insufficient to justify reopening; Dorr’s request for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, Dorr’s briefing failed to comply with Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) (no cogent legal argument or citations); the Court held her issues forfeited and affirmed the Commission’s decision without reaching the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeals examiner/Commission abused discretion by denying reopening of the appeal hearing	Dorr: missed hearing due to time-zone confusion and poor eyesight; reopening warranted	IDOL/Commission: Notice was correct; failure to adjust for time zones was negligence, not good cause	Forfeited on appeal for failure to brief; Commission’s denial affirmed
Whether the Notice was adequate (time-zone formatting)	Dorr: Pacific Time was in faint/non-bold font and unreadable to her	IDOL/Commission: Notice explicitly stated Mountain Time and told parties to adjust; not misleading	Commission found Notice adequate; Court did not reach merits beyond forfeiture
Whether appellate briefing complied with I.A.R. 35(a)(6) and preserves issues for review	Dorr: submitted briefs but did not present cogent argument or legal citations; alleged error is clear	IDOL: defects in briefing forfeit appellate issues; appellant bears burden to show error	Court: Dorr forfeited assigned errors for failing to comply with Rule 35(a)(6); affirmed decision

Allen v. Campbell, 169 Idaho 125, 492 P.3d 1084 (2021) (appellant bears burden to show error; briefing defects may forfeit issues)
Est. of Ekic v. Geico Indem. Co., 163 Idaho 895, 422 P.3d 1101 (2018) (appeal requires formalized legal analysis; court will not presume error)
Idaho Power Co. v. Cogeneration, Inc., 134 Idaho 738, 9 P.3d 1204 (2000) (court will not search record for error absent compliance with appellate rules)
Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317, 297 P.3d 1134 (2013) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as represented parties)
State v. McDay, 164 Idaho 526, 432 P.3d 643 (2018) (lack of cogent argument and authority precludes merits review)
Sparks v. Laura Drake Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 164 Idaho 138, 426 P.3d 489 (2018) (appellate court limited to record below; new evidence not considered)