Section 33
APPEALS, Constructive notice, Good cause, Legal advice, Timeliness of appeal to the Board of Review
CITE AS: Whitcomb v Stow Davis Furniture, No. 78827 (Mich App May 2, 1985).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Wayne Whitcomb
Employer: Stow Davis Furniture
Docket No: B82 11192 RO1 86744W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Delay in seeking legal advice does not constitute good cause for reopening a Referee's decision.
FACTS: Plaintiff failed to file a timely appeal to the Board of Review and, subsequently, sought to obtain an order from the Referee to reopen the decision. The Referee denied that request. The Board of Review affirmed, as did the circuit court. Plaintiff claimed that he contacted a lawyer because he did not know he could protest a restitution order. Moreover, claimant argues that he received the decision late, beyond the twenty-day appeal period, because he had moved and had not made the required address changes.
DECISION: Claimant's request to reopen is denied.
RATIONALE: Plaintiff has no one but himself to blame for his failure to leave a forwarding address. A person is charged with constructive notice where he had the means of obtaining knowledge but does not use them. Failure to receive a decision under these circumstances cannot constitute good cause. Ignorance of the law resulting from delay in seeking legal advice is not good cause.
11/90
1, 6, d14:I