on Briefs December 17, 2015
Corrected April 28, 2016
briefs: Samantha Ramelli, appellant, Pro se.
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Nancy Macirowski, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for the
Unemployment Insurance Commission.
SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
[¶1] Samantha Ramelli appeals from a
judgment entered in the Superior Court
(Aroostook County, Hunter, J. ) on her petition for
review of final agency action, see M.R. Civ. P. 80C,
affirming a decision issued by the Unemployment Insurance
Commission. In that decision, the Commission concluded that
Ramelli had not filed a timely appeal from an earlier
administrative order determining that she had been overpaid
$13,157 in unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm the
[¶2] Because the Superior Court reviewed the
Commission's decision as an intermediate appellate court,
we review the Commission's decision directly.
Sinclair Builders, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 2013 ME 76, ¶ 9, 73 A.3d 1061. Our
review is limited " to determin[ing] whether the
Commission correctly applied the law and whether its
[factual] findings are supported by any competent
evidence." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
[¶3] In a decision dated and mailed on March
30, 2011, a Deputy of the Department of Labor, Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation determined that Ramelli was
required to reimburse the Bureau for unemployment insurance
benefits she had received between April 2010 and March 2011
totaling $13,157. See 26 M.R.S. § 1194(2),
(10), (11)(C) (2015). The Deputy found that during this
period the Bureau had mailed Ramelli multiple requests for
work search logs, that Ramelli had failed to respond to those
requests, and that she was therefore not eligible for the
benefits she had received. See 26 M.R.S. §
1192(3) (2015) (providing that to be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits a claimant must be "
actively seeking work in accordance with the regulations of
the commission" ); see also 5 C.M.R. 12 172
003-2 § 1(D) (2004) (stating that benefits will be
denied if a claimant fails to respond to the Bureau's
requests for " information which is necessary to
determine his eligibility" ). The Deputy's decision
contained an admonition that the specific deadline for any
appeal from that overpayment determination was April 14,
2011, subject to a fifteen-day enlargement for good cause
shown. See 26 M.R.S. § 1194(2).
[¶4] On April 11, 2012--nearly one year
after the expiration of the appeal period--Ramelli filed an
appeal from the Deputy's March 2011 decision with the
Department of Labor, Division of Administrative Hearings. In
May 2012, the Division dismissed the appeal as untimely.
Ramelli then appealed the order of dismissal to the
Commission. Although notice of an appeal hearing was sent to
Ramelli, she did not appear, and the Commission accordingly
dismissed her appeal by order issued in September 2012,
and subsequently denied Ramelli's request for