Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Manosky v Freedom Adult Foster Care Corp 16.52

Section 35

PROCEDURE, Jurisdiction, Timeliness of appeal to Board

CITE AS: Manosky v Freedom Adult Foster Care Corp, Oakland Circuit Court, No. 93-464323-AE (July 18, 1994)

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Susan Manosky

Employer: Freedom Adult Foster Care Corp

Docket No. B92-24907-123547W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: There is no good cause exception to the time limit for filing an appeal.

FACTS: The claimant was discharged for allegedly making derogatory statements about her manager. The MESC held the claimant not disqualified for benefits by determination and redetermination. The employer appealed to the Referee. The Referee decision issued August 26, 1992, reversed the redetermination and held the claimant disqualified. The Referee decision contained a notice that any appeal must be received on or before September 25, 1992. Claimant's attorney mailed an appeal, but because he neglected to put a stamp on the envelope, it was not delivered. On September 29, 1992, the claimant's attorney hand-delivered an appeal letter explaining the reason for the delay. The Board of Review dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DECISION: Claimant's appeal was properly dismissed by the Board for lack of jurisdiction.

RATIONALE: "The statutes governing MESC procedures set strict time limits, usually of 30 days, for taking actions permitted by law. The statutes which authorize an interested party to seek reconsideration of a decision at each level of review also authorize such action after the 30-day period for good cause shown. . . . They do not, however, make a good cause exception to the time limitations for filing appeals."


12, 19:B

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page