DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADMINTSTRATION

t IOO NORTH EUTAW STREETBALTIMORE. }IARYLAND 2I2OI

!83 - lO32

- DECISTON -

TOARD OF ^PPE^LS

lriOMAS w XEECHChtr:mrn

HAZEL A II'ARNICXUAURICE E DtL'Aatocrltc McmDa?3

TEVENN E L^NIERApocrtr Coun*r

STATq OF IAIYLAND

XARRY HUGHES6orrnor

X,ALMAN R, XETTIEUANaacratarl

CLAIMANT: William Boone. Jr.

Whether the Claimant filedthe meaning of $4(l) of theable and available for workLaw.

EMPLOYER:

DECISION NO:

DATE:

APPEAL NO,:

S. S. NO.:

LO NO.:

APPELLANT:

511-BH-83

lpnU. 21 , 1?83

00173

40

AGENCY APPEAL

ISSUE

NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IN PERSON

OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CIW, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNW IN MARYLAND IN

WHICH YOU RESIDE.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT May 21, 1983

proper claims for benefits withinLaw; and whether the Claimant was

within the meaning of $4(c) of the

- APPEARANCES .FOR THE CLAIMANT:

William Boone, Jr. - ClaimantFOR THE EMPLOYER:

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONA.

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED

The Board of Appeals has considered all of the evidence pre-sented, including the testimony offered at the hearings. TheBoard has also considered all of the documentary evidence intro-duced into this case, as well as Employment Security Admini-stration's documents in the appeal file.

DHR/ESA 454 (Revised 3/82)

1-L

FINDINGS OF FACT

Appeal No. 00173

The Claimant- filed an original claim for unemployment insurancebenefits on october 14, l9gz. His 'benefit year b6gan october 10,1982.

At the time that the claimant filed his claim he was givenseveral documents to read and sign, including DHR/ESA Forms 200and 200D. (See Agency Exhibits B- I and B-i.) The latter documentsets forth the Claimant's

_ rights and obligations regarding unem-ployment insurance benefits, including:

2. I understand that the I must file a claim card for eachweek I am :.lu.iT.i.ng benefits while an appeai l; te;dlrg;^;my claim eligibility is pending additionai 'information.

5' I understand that if I do not receive a claim card inthe *"jl^,,,T1 _ u.-particular calin4;i -*i.ti,'--it^ --i;- ;'ir.esponslbtltty. to. report to the local office no later tharithe Frid.ay foirowils 1_h".Synday on which the claim card wasto have been mailed. Backdated"claims will ,oibe accepted.

The claimant.,, in..lgning the document, dcknowredged not onlvthat he read the infdrrnaiion "on1;i;;; therein, .but-Ji"^';h";'hJ

received additional pa.mphlets ."guiJing unemployment insurancebenefits' He was.not given ^qry cl"aim cards at th-is time but wastold to report back to "the office o, o.toue r 25, r9g2.The claimant 'was unable to report on october 25, rgg2 cue to amedical problem. Neverthel"rr,'h" i"ii..d^ll notify the agencyand failed to report until Nove

^'iir'iz', rg^g2. During this periodof time he did not fire any cra-im .u.d'r. on or about December25, 1982 he attemp-ted for ihe first ii;" to file claim cards forthe weeks ending octobsr r6, r9g2 to and incruding the weekending November iO, lgg2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAWThe Board of Appeals co-nclude.s that the claimant failed to fileproper claim cards for the week, .nitiiili o-ci6tt.*'i b,'i9sz throughNovember 20, 19g2, within the meaning of $4(b) of the Law.

the ClaimantCla.imant didwas unawareThe agency'sthe Claimantalthough thefor over onehad missed a

The evidence. does not support the allegations ofand the concrusion of trr"-appears Referee that thenot receive a'benefit rishts'interviL-*'una thereforeof the necessity.of f.i Ii;g craim cards-each week.lxhibits, signed by^ the C"laimant, .f .*fy show thatwas made awarg of these requiie*"nfr. Further,Claimant was ill, he d-id not contact the agencymonth, even though he rraa recel;;;-;" cards andscheduled report cl-'ate

The Claimant failed, without good cause, to file. proper claimsfor benefits within the meaning of S+fU) of th6 Liw for theweeks of october 16, 1982 October 30, 1992; November 6, 1982;November 13, 1982; and November 20, 1982.

3- Appeal No. 00173

Under the circumstances, the Board concludes that the Claimantfailed to meet the requirements of $4(b) of the Law.

The Claimant's disqualification under $a(C) of the Law was notraised by either party on appeal. Therefore the decisionregarding that section of the Law will be affirmed.

DECISION

The Claimant'was not able to work and available for work withinthe meaning of $4(c) of the MaryJu"^d Unemployment InsuranceLaw. The itai.nuni i'r disqualified from recelvlng unemploymentinsurance benefits from October 76, 1982 to October 23, 1982.

The decision of the Appeals Referee as to $4(b) of the Law isreversed; the decision

--of the Appeals Referee as to $a(c) ofthe Law is affirmed.

W:D:Kdp

DATE OF HEARING: April 5, 1983COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIivANT

Alan Berman Assistant Director of U.l.

UI'iEi'iPLOYl,iEtJT IiiSURAIICE EASTPOfi'iT

STATE OF MARYLANO

HARRY HUGHESGovernor

KALMAN B. HETTLEMANSecretary

CLAIMANT: William Boone, Jr.

IIPLOYER:

Whether thethe meaning

r??s.=-\lr\l? r!: L.!,:l':,1.1 rjf..qr r7.-=?t t -talra..- t,a-LU--!;-

EMPLOYMENT SECURTTY ADMINISTRATIONTTOO NORTH EUTAW STREET

BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 2I2OT

383 .5040

- DECISION -

DATE:

APPEAL NO.:

S. S. NO.:

1.0. N0.:

APPELLANT:

Jan. 27,

00173

1983

40

C I ai mant

benefits within

BOABD OF APPEALS

THOMAS W, KEECHChairman

MAURICE E. DILLHttZEL A. WARNTCKAssoclate Membe6

SEVERN E. LANIERAppeals Counset

MARK R. WOLFAdministrative

Hearinos Examiner

ISSUE:

claimant filed properof Section 4(b) of the

claims forL aw.

NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL

ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY BE FILED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT

SECURITY OFFICE, OR WITH THE APPEALS DIVISION, ROOM 5,I5, 11OO NORTH EUTAW STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN

PERSON OR BY MAIL.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING A FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON February 14, I 983

FOR THE CLAIMANT:

William Boone, Jr., Present

FINDINGS OF

The claimant filed an oribenefits effective October

-APPEARANCES -FOR THE EMPLOYER:

Other: John S Sutton,Claims Specialist IV

FACT

ginal claim for unemployment insurance10, 1982.

DHR/ESA 37'l-A (Revised 3/82)

@

"| 00r73

The claimant was employed by Mabrow Contractors, for approxi-mately thirty-three months, his last job classification as aProject Superintendent at an annual salary of $38,000. He lastworked for this employer on or about the last day of September,1982.

The claimant filed his claim for unemployment insurance benefitsat his local office. At the time of filing, he was told that apre-determination hearing must be held to determine whether heshould be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. He wasinstructed to return the following week, but was unable to do sodue to an illness. He never received a Benefit Rights Interviewto inform him of the importance of properly filling out a claimcard for each week and sending in that claim card in order toreceive unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant did notreappear in his local office until November 22, 1982, when hewas instructed to reopen his claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DECISION

The claimant should be considered as filing proper claim cardsfor benefits for the week of October 16, 1982; October 3 0 , 1982;November 6, 1982; November 13, 1982; and November 20, 1982.

The claimant was not able to work and available for work withinthe meaning of Section a(c) of the Maryland Unemployment Insur-ance Law. The claimant is disqualified from receiving unemploy-ment insurance benefits from october 16, 1982 to october 23,1982.

As the claimant was never given a Benefit Rights Interview toexplain to him the importance of filing a claim card each week,and what he should do in the event that he did not receive thatclaim card in the mail because of his illness, when he wasinstructed to report back "to his office the following week, theclaimant should only be disqualified from receiving unemploymentinsurance benefits during the week of October 23, 1982, andshould be permitted to file retroactive claims for the weeksending October 16, 1982; October 30,1982; November 6, 1982;November 13, 1982; and November 20, 1982. The determination ofthe Claims Examiner shall, therefore, be reversed.

I

- 3 - 00173

Date of hearing: January 20, 1983

Cassette: 409

hf (M. W. Williams)

COPIES MAILED TO:

C laimantUnemployment Insurance-Eastpoint