Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm.Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm.
For Appellant: M. Christos Makris, Pro se, 143 Boardman-Canfield Road, Apt. 218, Boardman, Ohio 44512
For Appellee: Atty. Mike DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, Atty. Susan M. Sheffield, Assistant Ohio Attorney General, Health and Human Services Section, Unemployment Compensation Unit, 20 West Federal Street, 3rd Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich
WAITE, J.
{¶1} Pro se Appellant M. Christos Makris appeals the judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his administrative appeal of his claim for unemployment benefits. The administrative appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to Appellant‘s failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“Review Commission“), pursuant to
{¶2} Appellant applied for unemployment benefits on December 12, 2009. The claim was denied on February 1, 2010, by Appellee, Director of the Department of Jobs and Family Services (“Director“). Appellant filed an administrative appeal, and a redetermination decision was issued March 23, 2010, affirming the initial decision. On May 26, 2010, the case was transferred to the Review Commission. A hearing was scheduled for July 23, 2010, but Appellant failed to attend this hearing. The claim was dismissed on July 23, 2010, with the dismissal to become final within 14 days unless Appellant provided good cause for his failure to appear at the hearing. Appellant responded on August 6, 2010, claiming he had waived his appearance at the hearing.
{¶3} On September 1, 2010, the Review Commission issued an order affirming the dismissal of the administrative appeal. The order stated that it “will
{¶4} On January 26, 2011, the Director filed a
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
APPELLEE ignorance of APPELLANT timely due process of law right, and ignorance of Evidence-of-Record review on eligible Unemployment Compensation benefits, is against the manifest weight of evidence and
{¶5} The matter under review is whether the trial court committed reversible error in dismissing Appellant‘s administrative appeal of an adverse ruling from the Review Commission. Appellant‘s “brief,” which is difficult to decipher, does not dispute the date he filed his appeal to the court of common pleas, or disagree with the law governing administrative appeals. Hence, Appellant has raised no reversible error in the trial court‘s actions.
{¶6} A claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. Kosky v. Am. Gen. Corp., 7th Dist. No. 03-BE-31, 2004-Ohio-1541, ¶9. If the claimant is dissatisfied, he or she may appeal a decision of the Review Commission to the court of common pleas.
{¶8} “It is elementary that an appeal, the right to which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. * * * Compliance with a requirement that a notice of appeal shall be filed within the time specified, in order to invoke jurisdiction, is no more essential than that the notice be filed at the place designated and that it be such in content as the statute requires.” Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 151 Ohio St. 123, 125, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949). “Compliance with these specific and mandatory requirements governing the filing of such notice is essential to invoke jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas.” Id., at paragraph two of the syllabus. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is the only act necessary to vest jurisdiction in the court of common pleas.
{¶9} If the appeal is filed beyond the 30-day deadline described in
{¶11} Again, Appellant‘s “brief” is almost unintelligible. Appellant‘s argument on appeal appears to be that the various officials and administrative departments involved in his case, along with the court of common pleas, are all confused about the dates both of the orders being appealed and the date that he filed his administrative appeal. He also argues that the final order on appeal to the court of common pleas was not issued until November 16, 2010. He asserts that he appealed this order on November 23, 2010. These allegations, however, are contradicted by the record in this matter. The documents in the record are quite clear. The Review Commission issued its final order on September 1, 2010. Appellant had 10 days to respond to the Review Commission to prevent the order from becoming final. Appellant did not respond. Appellant filed an appeal of the September 1, 2010, final order on November 23, 2010, in the court of common pleas. He filed this appeal 83 days after the final order was sent to Appellant. This is well beyond the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal under
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Vukovich, J., concurs.