GRIFFITH,
APPELLANT,
vs.
J.C. PENNEY CO., INC. ET AL.;
ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU
OF
EMP. SERV.,
APPELLEE
No. 85-1806
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
493 N.E.2d 959, 24 Ohio St. 3d 112, 24 Ohio B. Rep. 304
June 18, 1986, Decided
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County.
HEADNOTE
Administrative law -- Unemployment compensation --
Appellate procedure -- Estoppel principles may not be applied
against the state, when.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Lanny K. Griffith, applied for unemployment
compensation after he was terminated from his job at the J.C.
Penney Company, Inc., Distribution Center. On July 25, 1983, the
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES") disallowed Griffith's
application. The notification form Griffith received from OBES
contained the following information:
"APPEAL RIGHTS: If you think this
determination is incorrect as to fact or law, or if you have
additional facts which might affect the determination, you may file
a request for reconsideration in person at any bureau office. You
will be given assistance in preparing your written request. If you
desire, you may write directly to the local office in which the
claim is filed. To be considered timely, your request must
be filed in person or postmarked no later than fourteen calendar
days after the date entered in item 6 on this form. * * *"
(Emphasis added.)
Griffith gave the following testimony at his
hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review: On
August 5, 1983, Griffith went to the OBES office and told an OBES
employee that he wanted to appeal. The employee gave Griffith a
blank "Request for Reconsideration" form. Griffith asked the
employee if he could take the form home and mail it back after
formulating his reasons for seeking review and having the form
typed. He anticipated that it would take a week for him to complete
the form. The employee replied that this would not be a problem.
She then date-stamped the form for August 5, 1983 and said that
this would "cover" him. Griffith believed at this point that the
time requirement for his appeal had been satisfied.
Griffith's completed Request for
Reconsideration form was received by OBES on August 29, 1983,
thirty-five days after the administrator's decision had been
mailed. The administrator dismissed the request as untimely, and
the dismissal was upheld by the board of review. This decision was
affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. The court
of appeals affirmed the trial court.
The court of appeals, finding its judgment
to be in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals for Mahoning
County in Ruozzo v. . Giles
(1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 8, certified the record of the case to this
court for review and final determination on the following
question:
"Whether or not the doctrine of estoppel
applies against the state to extend the time within which an
employee has to file an administrative appeal, where the employee
is properly notified in writing by the state agency of the time
limit for filing an appeal, but subsequently receives and relies
upon the mistaken advice of a state employee that the time limit
can be extended."
COUNSEL
Sue Livensparger, Legal Aid Society of Columbus,
Thomas W. Weeks and Ohio State Legal Services
Assn., for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney
general, and Patrick A. Devine, for appellee
Administrator.
Lackey, Nusbaum, Harris, Reny & Torzewski, Gerald
Lackey, Richard W. McHugh and Jordan
Rossen, urging reversal for amicus
curiae, International Union, U. A. W.
Carolyn L. Carter and Anita
Myerson, urging reversal for amicus
curiae, Cleveland Council of Unemployed Workers.
Robert M. Clyde, urging reversal for
amicus curiae, United Steelworkers of America,
Local 1418.
JUDGES
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
C. BROWN and DOUGLAS, JJ., dissent.
AUTHOR: PER CURIAM
OPINION
{*113} R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) provides claimants with the
right to request reconsideration of the denial of an application
for unemployment benefits. A request for reconsideration must be
filed within fourteen days after the notice of the denial was
mailed. R.C. 4141.28(G)(1). Absent this statute, no such right of
appeal would exist. See Ford v.
. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 1, 4 [30
O.O. 236]. This court has consistently held that when a statute
confers a right of appeal, the appeal can only be perfected in the
manner prescribed by that statute. See McCruter v. . Bd. of Review
(1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 277, 279 [18 O.O.3d 463]; Holmes v. . Union
Gospel Press (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 187, 188 [18 O.O.3d 405]; Zier
v. . Bur. of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 125
[38 O.O. 573].
Griffith's appearance at the OBES office
within the statutory time period for requesting reconsideration did
not satisfy the requirement in R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) that a written
request be timely filed. Because his completed form was not
received by OBES until twenty-one days after the time limit,
Griffith did not comply with the statute.
Griffith argues, however, that his right to
appeal is nevertheless protected by equitable principles of
estoppel. This argument is based on his testimony that the OBES
employee date-stamped his form and told him that this would "cover"
him. We reject Griffith's argument. This court has previously
refused to apply principles of estoppel against the state, its
agencies or its agents, under circumstances involving an exercise
of governmental functions. See Chevalier v.
. Brown (1985), 17 Ohio St.
3d 61, 63; Besl Corp. v.
. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976),
45 Ohio St. 2d 146, 150 [74 O.O.2d 262]; State, ex rel.
Svete, v. . Bd. of Elections
(1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 16,
18 [33 O.O.2d 139]. See, also, Schweiker v. . Hansen (1981), 450 U.S. 785, rehearing denied
(1981), 451 U.S. 1032. The OBES notification form adequately
informed Griffith of the time limit for filing his request for
reconsideration. {*114} We see no reason to depart from
precedent and apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel under the
circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of
appeals is affirmed.
Judgment
affirmed.
DISPOSITION
Judgment
affirmed.