FILED
Oct 04 2019, 8:48 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joshua T. Rose Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Abell Rose LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Louisville, Kentucky Benjamin M. L. Jones
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Fidelity Automotive Group, October 4, 2019
Inc., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant, 19A-EX-614
Appeal from the Review Board of
v. the Indiana Department of
Workforce Development
Review Board of the Indiana Steven F. Bier, Chairperson
Department of Workforce Lawrence A. Dailey, Member
Development and J.R., Cause No.
Appellees. 19-R-0098
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 1 of 11
[1] Fidelity Automotive Group, Inc., (“Fidelity”) appeals a decision by the Review
Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the “Board”)
which affirmed J.R.’s claim for unemployment benefits. Fidelity raises one
issue which we revise and restate as whether it was denied a reasonable
opportunity for a fair hearing. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] J.R. began her employment with Fidelity on January 2, 2018, and her
employment was terminated effective November 9, 2018. She filed a claim for
unemployment benefits, and a claims investigator for the Department of
Workforce Development (“DWD”) issued a determination that J.R. was
discharged for just cause and that her benefits would be reduced and suspended
accordingly. J.R. appealed.
[3] A Notice of Telephone Hearing indicates that it was mailed to Fidelity and J.R.
on January 9, 2019. The notice states that a hearing by telephone was
scheduled before an administrative law judge (“the ALJ”) for January 22, 2019,
at 1:00 p.m. It states “you will receive a call from the Judge at the number you
provide by telephone or on the Acknowledgement Sheet.” Exhibits at 8.
Under the heading “IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
PROCESS” on the first page, the notice states:
1) To participate in this hearing, you MUST deliver the
enclosed Acknowledgement Sheet to the Appeals office by
mail, fax, or in person OR provide your telephone number
by calling the number below.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 2 of 11
2) Provide only ONE telephone number on the
Acknowledgement Sheet or by telephone. At the scheduled
date and time of your hearing the Judge will call YOU at
THIS telephone number.
3) If you have documents you want the Judge to consider you
MUST deliver them by mail, fax, or in person to the Appeals
office AND the other party. The documents must be
received at least 24 hours BEFORE the date of the
scheduled hearing.
*****
5) Other IMPORTANT INFORMATION is provided in the
enclosed U.I. APPEALS HEARING INSTRUCTIONS
sheet.
6) If you have any questions, or would like to provide your
telephone number for the hearing, contact the Appeals office
by telephone at . . . .
Id. The U.I. Appeals Hearing Instructions state in part:
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING
Contact Number: Return the enclosed Acknowledgment Sheet or
call the Appeals office to provide ONE contact number to reach
you. If your hearing is by telephone, this is the number the judge
will call for the hearing. . . . Provide your contact number by
telephone, mail, fax, or in person AT LEAST 24 hours prior to the
hearing. You must write legibly. If you deliver the sheet by fax, be
sure to keep the fax confirmation to prove that your document was
sent, should any problem arise later. It is your responsibility to
ensure that the judge has your contact telephone number. You may
call the judge’s clerk 24 hours before the hearing to confirm your
telephone number. . . . If you are scheduled for a telephone hearing
and have not provided your telephone number, the judge may
attempt to call you at the number provided on your appeal
statement. However, the judge is not required to search for a valid
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 3 of 11
contact number. If the judge is not able to reach you, regardless of
the cause, it may be considered as a lack of response and
participation in the hearing. A decision or dismissal may be issued
by the judge even if you do not participate.
Id. at 10.
[4] On January 22, 2019, the ALJ held the scheduled telephonic hearing. At the
start of the hearing, the ALJ called J.R. on the telephone and stated “normally
the Employer would testify first. At this point, I don’t have a telephone number
for the Employer, so the testimony will begin with me asking you questions,
and then give you an opportunity to add further to your testimony.” Transcript
Volume 2 at 3. The ALJ later stated, “I don’t know what the Employer - their
position is in this situation, if they don’t provide testimony at the hearing,” and
“I don’t base my decision on anything other than what’s presented during the
course of this hearing.” Id. at 4. The ALJ heard J.R.’s testimony.
[5] On January 25, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision which reversed the
determination of the claims investigator, found “[t]here is insufficient evidence
that the claimant engaged in misconduct based upon the reasons cited by the
claimant which constitute a breach of a duty reasonably owed to the employer,”
and concluded that J.R. was discharged but not for just cause. Exhibits at 18.
[6] The appellee’s appendix contains a document with a fax transmittal cover sheet
indicating it was faxed to DWD. The field for the date on the cover sheet states
January 25, 2019, the sheet is file-stamped as received and filed by the Board on
January 28, 2019, and the fax transmittal confirmation text appearing along the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 4 of 11
bottom edge of the document states “Received Time Jan. 28, 2019 10:21AM
No. 9494.” Appellee’s Appendix Volume 2 at 21. The cover sheet states:
“Comments: I have attached all paperwork that is relevant to this claim. We
waited for 60 minutes for the unemployment hearing phone call but never got
the call. It would appear that there was a FAX transmission error; only part of
the paperwork that we faxed went through but not the form that indicated that
we would attend the hearing.” Id. One of the pages of the faxed document was
a completed Acknowledgement Sheet. On January 30, 2019, Fidelity sent a fax
transmittal to the Board requesting an appeal and stating: “I faxed in all
documents 19 pages in total and we were present for the hearing on . . .
1/22/2019 at 1pm and waiting the 60 minutes as indicated,” “[u]nfortunately,
the next day we discovered that only part of the fax transmission went through
that informed the Appeals Hearing that we wanted to participate,” “[t]he
document that stated we were going to participate was one of the documents
that failed to fax,” and “I would also like to submit evidence to the Review
Board (I have faxed the documents) with this letter.” Id. at 3.
[7] On February 15, 2019, the Board issued a decision indicating that no additional
evidence was accepted, adopting and incorporating by reference the findings
and conclusions of the ALJ, and affirming the ALJ’s decision.
Discussion
[8] Upon review of an unemployment compensation proceeding, we determine
whether the Board’s decision is reasonable in light of its findings. T.R. v. Rev.
Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 950 N.E.2d 792, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 5 of 11
adhered to on reh’g. We are bound by the Board’s resolution of all factual issues,
and accordingly we do not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of
witnesses. Id. at 794-795. We consider only the evidence and reasonable
inferences which are most favorable to the Board’s decision and will not set
aside the decision if there is substantial evidence of probative value in support
thereof. Id. at 795. We determine de novo whether the Board correctly
interpreted and applied the law. Id. Whether a party was afforded due process
in an unemployment proceeding is a question of law. Id.
[9] Fidelity claims that it was not afforded a reasonable opportunity for a fair
hearing on its objection to J.R.’s petition for unemployment benefits as required
by Ind. Code § 22-4-32-5, which provides in part that “the liability
administrative law judge, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for
a fair hearing, shall make findings and conclusions, and, on the basis thereof,
affirm, modify, or reverse the initial determination of the department.” Fidelity
argues “[t]he ALJ knew that Fidelity was challenging unemployment benefits,
because Fidelity had challenged benefits with [the] Claims Investigator and
faxed additional information to the Department in advance of the hearing” and,
“[d]espite this knowledge, the ALJ made no effort to attempt to contact
Fidelity.” Appellant’s Brief at 6. It argues: “Thereafter, Fidelity attempted
repeatedly to obtain the opportunity for a fair hearing by appealing to the
Review Board and even hired counsel to move for reconsideration. But the
Review Board stonewalled Fidelity at every turn.” Id. It states “[e]mployers
like Fidelity should not have to incur the expense of appeal and burden the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 6 of 11
Court of Appeals in situations like this,” and “[i]n the interests of justice, due
process and efficiency, the Review Board should have granted [its] request for a
hearing.” Id. It requests that this Court remand with instructions to provide it
with a hearing to present evidence.
[10] The Board responds that Fidelity has waived its claim by failing to present
cogent argument, cite a standard of review, provide an analysis regarding a
reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing, or cite to the record to show that it
actually faxed documents to the Board before the hearing. It argues that the fax
dated January 25, 2019, was received by the Board on January 28, 2019, after
the January 22, 2019 hearing. It states that Fidelity was provided with notice of
the hearing and multiple avenues to confirm its appearance but failed to do so
and that Fidelity does not assert that it did not receive the notice. It contends
that Fidelity conceded that it failed to send the sheet indicating it wanted to
participate in the hearing and that it did not follow up with the ALJ to confirm
its telephone number and appearance before the hearing. It further argues that
“[t]he alleged failure of the fax machine to send the acknowledgment sheet, as
well as [Fidelity’s] failure to follow up with the ALJ, could have been
anticipated and avoided by [Fidelity].” Appellee’s Brief at 17-18. The Board
states that, like in T.R., 950 N.E.2d 792, the Board provided ample notice to
Fidelity and Fidelity had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing
but failed to take advantage of that opportunity. It also argues that the Board
did not err in denying Fidelity’s request for a hearing and that the ALJ’s
decision is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the record. In
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 7 of 11
reply, Fidelity argues that Indiana has a strong preference for deciding cases on
their merits and avoiding defaults and that, “just as in Lush [v. Rev. Bd. of the Ind.
Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 944 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh’g denied, trans.
denied], the minimal burden and cost associated with rescheduling a hearing far
outweighs awarding or denying unemployment benefits that are not challenged
on the merits.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 4.
[11] We note that Fidelity does not argue that it did not receive the Notice of
Telephone Hearing mailed on January 9, 2019, which set forth the date and
time of the telephonic hearing and provided that, to participate in the hearing,
Fidelity was required to deliver the enclosed Acknowledgement Sheet to the
appeals office by mail, fax, or in person or provide a telephone number. The
notice also provided that any documents must be received at least twenty-four
hours before the hearing. Further, the U.I. Appeals Hearing Instructions
instructed the parties to provide a contact number by telephone, mail, fax, or in
person at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing, that they should “be sure
to keep the fax confirmation to prove that your document was sent, should any
problem arise later,” and that they “may call the judge’s clerk 24 hours before
the hearing to confirm [their] telephone number.” Exhibits at 10.
[12] Fidelity does not cite to the record to show that it delivered a completed
Acknowledgement Sheet or otherwise provided a telephone number to the ALJ
or the appeals office prior to the January 22, 2019 hearing as instructed.
Although the appellee’s appendix contains a fax transmittal to DWD
containing a completed Acknowledgement Sheet, the field for the date on the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 8 of 11
cover sheet states January 25, 2019, the sheet is file-stamped as received and
filed by the Board on January 28, 2019, and the fax transmittal confirmation
information states the document was transmitted on January 28, 2019. Fidelity
also does not assert that it called the judge’s clerk to confirm its telephone
number or retained a fax confirmation to prove its document was sent as stated
in the U.I. Appeals Hearing Instructions. Fidelity does not demonstrate that it
delivered a completed Acknowledgement Sheet or a telephone number to the
ALJ or the appeals office prior to the hearing.
[13] Based upon the record, we conclude that Fidelity has not established that under
the circumstances it was denied due process or a reasonable opportunity to
participate in a telephonic hearing. See T.R., 950 N.E.2d at 795-796 (noting the
instructions received by the claimant and holding that, although the claimant
alleged that she had mailed in a participation sheet, she did not follow up to
confirm that the administrative law judge had received her sheet or had her
correct phone number; that, while the claimant did not take an affirmative
action to waive her opportunity to participate, her missed opportunity to
participate in the hearing could have been anticipated and prevented; and that
she was given notice and an opportunity to be heard and her failure to take
advantage of the opportunity to be heard did not constitute a denial of due
process); Davis v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 955 N.E.2d 790, 794
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (finding the claimant did not submit a participation form
despite provisions in the notice and hearing instructions requiring her to do so,
she had an affirmative duty to provide a telephone number, that requirement
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 9 of 11
was not unreasonable, and her failure to participate in the telephonic hearing
resulted entirely from her disregard for the hearing instructions); Art Hill, Inc. v.
Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
(noting the employer provided a telephone extension to the administrative law
judge’s office two days before the hearing but failed to notify it that its contact
telephone number changed prior to the hearing and holding that a party to an
unemployment hearing may voluntarily waive the opportunity for a fair hearing
where the party received actual notice of the hearing and failed to appear at or
participate in the hearing and that the employer was not denied a reasonable
opportunity for a fair hearing or due process). 1
[14] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.
[15] Affirmed.
1
To the extent Fidelity cites Lush, we find the case to be distinguishable. In Lush, the claimant provided a
telephone number to a union hall, the union hall operator was unable to locate the claimant, and the
claimant indicated that he was present at the union hall but was told that he had not received a call from the
administrative law judge. 944 N.E.2d at 496. This Court held that, “without deciding whether the Board’s
dismissal of Lush’s appeal rises to the level of a due process violation, equitable considerations underlying the
Act and its humanitarian purposes lead unmistakably to the conclusion that this dismissal should be
reversed” and that “[t]he Board’s decision to uphold the dismissal of an appeal as the result of a missed
phone call, in this situation, is greatly out of proportion to the minimal costs of rescheduling a second
telephonic hearing between Lush and the ALJ.” Id. Here, Fidelity does not show that it delivered a
completed Acknowledgement Sheet or otherwise provided a telephone number prior to the hearing. See
Davis, 955 N.E.2d at 794 (noting that, unlike the claimant in Lush, Davis did not submit a participation form
despite the notice and hearing instructions requiring her to do so and, as such, Lush was not persuasive
authority). We also note that the ALJ held a hearing at which it heard J.R.’s testimony and entered findings
and conclusions. See T.R., 950 N.E.2d at 797 (noting our preference for deciding cases on their merits but
stating that, unlike in Lush, the administrative law judge actually held a hearing, T.R.’s employer appeared
and presented evidence, and the administrative law judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law
based on the merits).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 10 of 11
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-EX-614 | October 4, 2019 Page 11 of 11