Samantha Ramelli v. Unemployment Insurance Commission, 130 A.3d 963

Ramelli challenged a March 30, 2011 Department of Labor overpayment decision totaling $13,157.
The Deputy’s decision stated a 15-day appeal window with a 15-day extension for good cause; deadline April 14, 2011.
Ramelli filed a timely April 2012 appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which dismissed it as untimely.
Ramelli appealed the Division’s dismissal to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after noting untimeliness.
The Superior Court (York County) initially remanded; the Commission held the default resolved and remanded for record development on timeliness and merits.
On remand, the Commission found the March 2011 decision was properly mailed to Ramelli’s address of record in Arundel, though she lived in New Hampshire at the time; thus the April 2012 appeal to the Division was untimely and merits were not addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Ramelli’s Division appeal	Ramelli contends timely appeal under 26 M.R.S. §1194(2).	Commission argues untimely under statute.	Untimely; time-barred
Effect of mailing address on timeliness	Ramelli asserts mailing to address of record was improper because she resided elsewhere.	Mailing to the last known address satisfies statute.	Mailing valid; does not cure untimeliness
Jurisdiction to address merits when appeal untimely	If timely, Ramelli would challenge merits of overpayment.	Untimeliness deprives Commission/division of jurisdiction to reach merits.	No jurisdiction; merits not addressed

Sinclair Builders, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 2013 ME 76 (Me. 2013) (review limited to law and competent evidence)
McKenzie v. Me. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 453 A.2d 505 (Me. 1982) (appeal periods are jurisdictional and mandatory)