Edward Russell, Plaintiff-Appellant
 vs.

State of Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,

Etc., Defendant-Appellees

No. 52898
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Slip Opinion
November 25, 1987, Decided

Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 108,835.

John W. Martin, For Plaintiff-Appellant.
John F. Kozlowski, Assistant Attorney General, For Defendant-Appellees.

 JUDGES

JOSEPH J. NAHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE.
PATTON, J., and CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR.
 AUTHOR: NAHRA

 OPINION

 

 

 
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 

NAHRA, C.J.:

 

Edward Russell, appellant, is appealing the judgment of the trial court which affirmed the State of Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's decision dismissing appellant's case for failure to show good cause for not appearing at a scheduled hearing.

 

Appellant filed an appeal with the Board of Review from a decision on reconsideration of the administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. After granting several continuances at appellant's request from September through December, 1985, the Board of Review scheduled a hearing on appellant's case> for January 14, 1986. On January 8, appellant's attorney mailed a letter to the Board requesting a continuance of the January 14 hearing date for the reason that "[c]ounsel has a prior committment [sic] on that date . . . ." On January 14, 1986, when neither appellant nor his attorney appeared at the hearing, the referee dismissed appellant's appeal.

 

On March 10, a hearing was had on the issue of whether good cause existed for appellant's failure to appear. Appellant testified that he did not appear at the hearing because his attorney told him that the hearing would be continued. Tr. 4. Appellant's counsel testified that he did not appear and advised his client not to appear because he assumed the hearing would be rescheduled> because it had been postponed in the past. Tr. 7-9. Appellant's counsel never called to see if his requested continuance had in fact been granted. Tr. 8. He just assumed that the hearing would be postponed. Tr. 7-8. Additionally, appellant's counsel showed the referee that his appointment book for January 14 was full. Tr. 6-7. On April 7, 1986, the Board decided that good cause had not been shown for failing to appear at the hearing scheduled for January 14.

 

On April 23, 1986, appellant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, and on October 15, 1986, the court affirmed the Board of Review's decision. Appellant timely appealed.

 

I.

 

Appellant's first and second assignments of error, which will be addressed together, are that:

 

I. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE OHIO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR HIS ABSENCE FROM THE JANUARY 14, 1986 HEARING WAS UNREASONABLE AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

 

II. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO LIMIT ITS REVIEW OF THE DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S CAUSE TO THE FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S CAUSE.

 

R.C. 4141.28(J)(2), which governs the failure of a party to appear at a scheduled hearing, provides in relevant part that:

 

If the party appealing fails to appear at the hearing, the referee or the board shall dismiss the appeal, provided due notice of the hearing was mailed to such party's last known address and good cause for such failure to appear is not shown the referee or the board within ten days after the hearing date, or within fourteen days if the reason the party failed to appear was because he was working.

 

In other words, an appeal will not be dismissed if the party appealing demonstrates good cause for failing to appear. A reviewing court should not reverse the agency's decision unless the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence. R.C. 4141.28(0).

 

After reviewing the record in this case, it is our opinion that neither the lower court's or agency's decision was unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence. It was unreasonable for appellant's counsel to forego phoning the agency to determine whether his request for a continuance had in fact been granted and to assume that the January 14 hearing> had been postponed simply because counsel had obtained prior continuances. The record supports the conclusion that good cause for failing to appear at the January 14 hearing was not shown. Accordingly, these assignments of error are overruled.

 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 DISPOSITION
 

AFFIRMED.