# Allen v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · July 18, 1990 · 578 A.2d 687

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4948671

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles R. ALLEN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 18, 1990
- **Citations:** 578 A.2d 687; 1990 D.C. App. LEXIS 172; 1990 WL 101048
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pryor
- **Judges:** Ferren, Newman, Pryor
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4948671

## Opinion text

PRYOR, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
The majority provides that when an appeals examiner determines the “last known address” of an employer, he or she may not merely accept the agency’s representation that it knew a certain address to be correct. Rather, even in cases such as this where there is no evidence to the contrary, the factfinder must inquire about the source of the agency’s professed knowledge. The examiner then must determine the reasonableness of the agency’s belief that it used (or in this case, did not use) the correct address.
While the procedure required by the majority is not itself objectionable, on the present record I conclude that a remand is unnecessary. Here, there was evidence that the agency normally sends 142c forms to a more precise address than it did in this case, and that the District never received the notice. Accordingly, it was proper for the OAR to conclude that the agency did not send notice to the District’s “last known address.” See MacKenzie v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 258, 259 , 393 F.2d 659, 660 (1968).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4948671. Public record. Not legal advice.