Mackenzie Carney, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1927

Mackenzie Carney,
Relator,

vs.

Optum Services, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 10, 2019
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 36667645-3

Mackenzie Carney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Optum Services, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and John
Smith, Judge.*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Relator challenges an unemployment -law judge’s dismissal of her appeal of an
ineligibility determination as untimely. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Mackenzie Carney worked for Optum Services, Inc. and established an
unemployment-benefits account effective February 4, 2018. When Carney first applied for
unemployment benefits, she listed her address in Eden Prairie, but she updated it on March
20, 2018, to an address in Minneapolis.
On August 10, 2018, the Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED) mailed Carney a determination of ineligibility at her address in Minneapolis. The
determination explained that Carney was ineligible for unemployment benefits for one
week and that Carney had until August 30—20 days after the mailing—to appeal.
Carney appealed the determination of ineligibility on September 13. When filing
her appeal, Carney was asked to verify her address. Carney made no changes to her
address, listed in Minneapolis, but stated that she did not receive the original determination
and had recently moved.
An unemployment -law judge (ULJ) summarily dismissed Carney’s appeal as
untimely. Carney requested reconsideration, stating that she did not receive the
determination letter from DEED in August, and had moved multiple times which may have
prevented her from receiving any mail. The ULJ affirmed the order of dismissal and found

3
that DEED sent the determination to the address provided on Carney’s unemployment -
benefits account. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
When reviewing the ULJ’s conclusions, this court may affirm the decision, remand
for further proceedings, or we “may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights
of the petitioner may have been prejudiced.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2018). A
ULJ’s decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which this court
reviews de novo. Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC , 814 N.W.2d 25, 29
(Minn. App. 2012). Although Carney challenges the underlying determinati on of
ineligibility, when a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely, the only question before this
court is whether the ULJ erred in dismissing the appeal. Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d
193, 199 (Minn. 1947).
A “determination of ineligibility is final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or
employer within 20 calendar days after sending.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2018).
Once a decision becomes final, the ULJ is “deprived of jurisdiction to conduct further
review,” Rowe v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 704 N.W.2d 191, 196 (Minn. App. 2005),
and “must issue a decision dismissing the appeal as untimely if the judge decides the appeal
was not filed within 20 calendar days after the sending of the determination.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 1a(c) (2018). The statutory time period is “absolute and unambiguous,”
and there are no provisions for exceptions or extensions. Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling
Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 739-40 (Minn. App. 2006).

4
Carney argues that she did not receive the determination of ineligibility from DEED
because she did not have a permanent living situation or access to the mailbox at the address
listed. The ULJ found that DEED sent the determination to the address Carney listed on
her unemployment-benefits account, ful filling its statutory obligations. See Minn. Stat.
§ 268.032(b) (2018) (stating that if any required determination issued is sent by mail to an
applicant, the determination “must be sent to the last known address”). The record shows
that Carney updated her address on March 20, 2018 and DEED sent the determination to
this address. The record reflects that DEED fulfilled its statutory obligation of mailing the
determination of ineligibility to Carney’s last known address, as it is the responsibility of
relator to update her address if any changes occur. See Johnson v. Metro. Med. Ctr. , 395
N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming dismissal after DEED sent determination
to relator’s last known address).
“The date of mailing commences the time for appeal .” Smith v. Masterson Pers.,
Inc., 483 N.W.2d 111, 112 (Minn. App. 1992). Actual notice is not required for the
statutory time period to run. Johnson, 395 N.W.2d at 382. Because DEED mailed the
determination to Carney’s last known address on August 10 which commenced the 20-day
time period, and Carney filed her appeal on September 13, her appeal was untimely.
Although Carney’s challenge to the underlying determination may have merit,
Carney failed to file her appeal within 20 days of the determination of ineligibility. The
ULJ did not err in dismissing her appeal as untimely.
Affirmed.