Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Thomas Randolph v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2024-CA-1538
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: A. Jones

• Disposition: OPINION AFFIRMING

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (22.7K)

• PDF

Disposition

OPINION AFFIRMING

Combined Opinion

                        by [Allison Jones](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/7333/allison-jones/)

RENDERED: MARCH 20, 2026; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2024-CA-1538-MR

THOMAS RANDOLPH APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE KATHRYN H. GABHART, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 23-CI-00160

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, APPELLEE
KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMMISSION

OPINION
AFFIRMING

---

BEFORE: COMBS, A. JONES, AND L. JONES, JUDGES.

JONES, A., JUDGE: Thomas Randolph appeals the Bourbon Circuit Court’s

order affirming an order of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky

Unemployment Insurance Commission (“Commission”). The sole issue before us

is whether Randolph’s administrative appeal, filed pursuant to KRS1 341.420, from

1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
the Commission’s November 18, 2022 determination of benefits, was timely.

Following careful review of the record and all applicable law, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are not complex and are largely undisputed.

Randolph filed a claim with the Commission seeking Pandemic

Unemployment Assistance benefits for the week of April 11, 2021, through April

17, 2021. On November 18, 2022, the Commission mailed Randolph a

determination denying his claim. The determination informed Randolph that he

had the right to appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Branch within

thirty days of the mailing date. To comply with that deadline, the appeal was

required to be either postmarked or received by December 19, 2022. The

determination further advised Randolph that he could submit his appeal by one of

three methods: (1) by mail addressed to Appeals Branch, 500 Mero Street, 4-SC,

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; (2) by email to UIappeals@ky.gov; or (3) by fax to

502-564-7850.2

2
Specifically, the Notice of Determination informed Randolph of his appeal rights as follows:

If you disagree with the Determination, you may file an appeal to
the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Branch by following the
instructions below.

1. The appeal must be in writing and clearly indicate the party’s intention to appeal. KRS 341.420(2) and 787 KAR [Kentucky Administrative Regulation] 1:110 § 1(a). -2- Sometime prior to December 20, 2022, Randolph mailed a written

appeal. However, according to Randolph, he addressed the envelope to “500

Metro Street” rather than “500 Mero Street.” Although Randolph was unable to

produce the envelope at the administrative hearing, he testified that it was returned

to him as undeliverable on December 20, 2022. On December 21, 2022, Randolph

1. The appeal document should include the Claimant’s Name, the
   last 4 digits of their Social Security Number or their Claimant
   Reference Number, and Contact Information.

2. The appeal may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: Appeals Branch,
   500 Mero Street 4-SC, Frankfort, KY 40601, by email at
   UIappeals@ky.gov or by FAX to 502-564-7850. If you are the
   claimant you may submit your appeal through document upload on
   your UI account home page [at] www.kewes.ky.gov.

3. The written appeal must be received or postmarked within 30
   days after the date of mailing of this determination.

4. If the due date of the appeal falls on a day that the office or post
   office is closed, the next day the office or post office is open shall
   be considered the due date. 787 KAR 1:230 § 3.

5. The written appeal must be received or postmarked by
   12/19/2022.

6. Private postage meters shall not be used to determine postmark
   date. 787 KAR 1:230 § 1(2).

7. Further information regarding your appeal rights and the
   appellate process may be found at kcc.ky.gov or you may contact
   the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Branch at 502-564-3925.
   ATTENTION CLAIMANT: CONTINUE TO CLAIM BENEFITS
   WHILE YOUR CLAIM IS UNDER APPEAL. IF THE
   DECISION IS IN YOUR FAVOR, BENEFITS MAY BE PAID
   ONLY FOR THE WEEKS PROPERLY CLAIMED.
   -3-
   hand-delivered his appeal to the Commission and also transmitted it by email and

mail.

A referee initially concluded that the appeal was untimely. Randolph

appealed that determination to the Commission. The Commission remanded the

matter for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of timeliness. Following that

hearing, the referee again concluded the appeal was untimely. Randolph appealed

once more to the Commission, which affirmed the dismissal.3

Randolph then sought judicial review in the Bourbon Circuit Court

pursuant to KRS 341.450. The parties agreed that the material facts were not in

dispute and submitted the matter to the circuit court on briefs. On November 15,

2024, the circuit court entered an opinion and order affirming the Commission’s

decision.

This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Judicial review of a decision of the Kentucky Unemployment

Insurance Commission is governed by the general rule applicable to administrative

actions. ‘If the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence of probative

value, then they must be accepted as binding and it must then be determined

3
We note that the referee found the appeal was received on December 22, 2022. The
Commission rejected that finding and instead determined that the appeal was received on
December 21, 2022. The one-day discrepancy is not material to the disposition of this appeal.
-4-
whether or not the administrative agency has applied the correct rule of law to the

facts so found.’” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.

Comm’n, 437 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Ky. 1969) (citing Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards,

365 S.W.2d 299 (Ky. 1962)). Substantial evidence is evidence which has sufficient

probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people. Kentucky

State Racing Comm’n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972). If there is

substantial evidence in the record to support an agency’s findings, the findings will

be upheld, even though there may be conflicting evidence in the record. Kentucky

Comm’n on Human Rights v. Fraser, 625 S.W.2d 852, 856 (Ky. 1981). An

agency’s findings are clearly erroneous if arbitrary or unsupported by substantial

evidence in the record. Id. If the reviewing court concludes the rule of law was

correctly applied to facts supported by substantial evidence, the final order of the

agency must be affirmed.” Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Cecil, 381

S.W.3d 238, 245–46 (Ky. 2012).

III. ANALYSIS

Randolph argues that his appeal should be deemed timely under the

doctrine of substantial compliance. He maintains that but for the inclusion of an

extra “t” in the street name—addressing his envelope to “500 Metro Street” rather

than “500 Mero Street”—his appeal would have been timely filed. The

-5-
Commission responds that timeliness is a matter of strict compliance. We agree

with the Commission.

As a general rule, there is no automatic right to appeal an

administrative determination. Kenton Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment v. Meitzen, 607

S.W.3d 586, 593 (Ky. 2020). Rather, the right to appeal from an administrative

decision is one of legislative grace and exists only to the extent and in the manner

prescribed by statute. Nickell v. Diversicare Mgmt. Servs., 336 S.W.3d 454, 456

(Ky. 2011); Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Carter, 689 S.W.2d 360, 361 (Ky.

1985) (“[W]e find no authority before the court to authorize the doctrine of

substantial compliance in a case where the appeal process is statutorily created and

implemented.”). Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and possess only

the authority conferred upon them by the General Assembly. They lack inherent

power to disregard statutory deadlines, and properly promulgated regulations carry

the full force of law. Grimes v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 340 S.W.3d 104,

106 (Ky. App. 2011) (“When a mechanism for appeal is provided by statute, strict

adherence to its procedure is required.”); Jenny Wiley Health Care Ctr. v.

Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Ky. 1992). Accordingly, where the

legislature establishes specific procedural requirements for invoking administrative

review, those requirements must be strictly followed.

-6-
KRS 341.420(2) permits a claimant to appeal a determination within

thirty days of the mailing of the decision. See also 787 KAR 1:110 § 2(1)(a). In

this case, the deadline was December 19, 2022. Because the right to appeal is

statutorily created, compliance with the statutory time limit is mandatory.

Accordingly, the timeliness requirement in KRS 341.420 must be strictly applied.

Simply put, the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply in the

administrative appeals process.

Even if we were to assume that substantial compliance principles

apply in some administrative contexts, they do not operate to extend a statutory

deadline for filing an appeal. Randolph relies on Ready v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d

479 (Ky. 1986), where the Supreme Court adopted a rule of substantial compliance

in appellate practice. However, our Supreme Court has explicitly carved out

untimely appeals from that doctrine. “Excepting for tardy appeals and the naming

of indispensable parties, we follow a rule of substantial compliance.” Johnson v.

Smith, 885 S.W.2d 944, 950 (Ky. 1994). There is no substantial compliance rule

with respect to the timely filing of a notice of appeal, and that rule applies “even

when the appealing party makes a good faith effort to file[.]” Cabinet for Health

and Fam. Servs. v. D.W., 680 S.W.3d 856, 860 (Ky. 2023) (quoting Cabinet for

Health and Fam. Servs. v. H.C., 581 S.W.3d 580, 583 (Ky. 2019)).

-7-
The same principle has been applied in administrative settings. See

Workers’ Compensation Bd. v. Siler, 840 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Ky. 1992); Jenny Wiley

Health Care Ctr., 828 S.W.2d 657. In each instance, the Supreme Court rejected

reliance on Ready where the defect involved untimeliness. Thus, even under

ordinary appellate jurisprudence, substantial compliance cannot save a tardy

appeal.

Pursuant to the applicable statute and regulations, an appeal is

considered timely if it is either received by the deadline or postmarked by that date.

The postmark rule necessarily contemplates that the appeal bearing the timely

postmark is the same appeal actually received by the Appeals Branch. That is the

only mechanism by which the agency can verify the mailing date.

Here, Randolph’s initial mailing was misaddressed and returned as

undeliverable. It was never received by the Appeals Branch. Because that mailing

did not result in delivery, there was no envelope before the agency from which a

timely postmark could be verified. The appeal ultimately received by the

Commission was transmitted after the December 19 deadline. Subsequent filings

cannot “relate back” to an unsuccessful and undelivered mailing. Each filing must

independently satisfy the statutory requirements.

While Randolph’s addressing error was minor, the statute does not

permit equitable enlargement of the filing period. The first attempted appeal was

-8-
ineffective. The appeal actually received was untimely. Because strict

compliance with the statutory deadline is required, the circuit court correctly

affirmed the Commission decision that Randolph’s appeal was untimely.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Bourbon Circuit

Court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

William H.B. Rich Bernadette Leveridge
Paris, Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky

-9-