Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marva Duquesne v. Commission et al

October 27, 2011

MARVA DUQUESNE, APPELLANT-APPELLANT,
v.
COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLEES-APPELLEES.



APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. (C.P.C. No. 10CVF-10-15201)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: French, J.

Cite as Duquesne v. Ohio State Unemp. Review Comm.,

Ohio State Unemployment Review : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

DECISION

{¶1} Appellant-appellant, Marva Duquesne ("appellant"), appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision by appellee-appellee Ohio State Unemployment Review Commission ("commission") to disallow review of its decision affirming denial of unemployment compensation by appellee-appellee Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶2} This appeal arises from appellant's application for unemployment compensation. ODJFS denied her request for compensation for certain time periods because appellant did not file her claims within applicable time limits or did not meet the registration requirements. Upon appeal by appellant, ODJFS affirmed the denial of those benefits.

{¶3} Following additional correspondence from appellant, ODJFS transferred the matter to the commission. A hearing officer of the commission held a telephone hearing, in which appellant participated and testified. In a written decision, the hearing officer affirmed the denial of benefits. In a letter dated September 3, 2010, appellant requested a review of the hearing officer's decision. The commission disallowed her request.

{¶4} On October 15, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court, alleging that the commission erred by disallowing her request for review of the hearing officer's decision. On December 23, 2010, appellant filed a copy of the September 3, 2010 letter she had written to the commission to request review of the hearing officer's decision, as well as the information she submitted to ODJFS in support of her prior appeals ("the December 23 filing").

{¶5} On January 7, 2011, ODJFS moved to dismiss appellant's appeal for failure to prosecute. On January 11, 2011, ODJFS moved to withdraw its dismissal motion, noting the December 23 filing. The court allowed ODJFS to withdraw its prior motion and granted ODJFS time to file its brief, which ODJFS then filed on January 21, 2011.

{¶6} On February 9, 2011, the trial court issued a decision and entry that affirmed the commission's decision. In its decision, the trial court explained the procedural history of appellant's appeal, including ODJFS's filing, and then withdrawal, of its motion to dismiss. The court viewed the December 23 filing as appellant's brief and expressly considered its contents. In a detailed decision, the court then considered the entire record, analyzed the applicable law, and concluded that the commission's decision was lawful, reasonable, and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶7} Appellant filed a timely appeal, and she raises the following assignment of error:

1. The Common Pleas Court committed reversible error in sua sponte vacating the previously-approved entry extending parties' even schedule briefing time and thereupon grating [sic] the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute without affording the appellant the opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss, as required by local rule of court.

(Emphasis sic.)

{ΒΆ8} In an administrative appeal, pursuant to R.C. 119.12, the trial court reviews an order to determine whether it is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with the law. In applying this standard, the court must "give due deference to the administrative resolution of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.