Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-4-17-3 (2026)
Administrative appeal; disputed claims
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) Unless such request for hearing is withdrawn, an administrative law judge, after providing the notice required under section 6 of this chapter and affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify, or reverse the findings of fact and decision of the deputy.
(b) The parties shall be duly notified of the decision made under subsection (a) and the reasons therefor, which shall be deemed to be the final decision of the review board, unless within fifteen (15) days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision, an appeal is taken by the commissioner or by any party adversely affected by such decision to the review board.
Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.1803; Acts 1957, c.299, s.4. As amended by P.L.18-1987, SEC.48; P.L.135-1990, SEC.7; P.L.21-1995, SEC.87; P.L.175-2009, SEC.28.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Quakenbush v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Quakenbush v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3. However, Quakenbush has not received a fair hearing of his appeal, in spite of substantial efforts on his part to obtain one.”
Art Hill, Inc. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 898 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Code § 22-4-17-8.5(b)(4). “Each party to a hearing before an [ALJ] held under [Indiana Code section 22-4-17-3] shall be mailed a notice of the hearing at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing specifying the place and time of the hearing and identifying the issues to…”
S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3(a). The ALJ may hold the hearing by telephone absent an objection from an interested party and after determining that a telephonic hearing is proper and just.”
Miller v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 878 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3. A “fair hearing” inherently includes reasonable notice of the hearing.”
Abdirizak v. Review Bd. Ind. Dept. of Work. Dev., 826 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3. We interpret this provision to include reasonable notice, which requires that parties receive actual, timely notice.”
Szymanski v. Review Bd. Dept. of Workforce Dev. & Roseland Police Dept., 656 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 22-4-17-3 which provides: Unless such request for hearing is withdrawn, an administrative law judge, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify, or reverse the findings of fact and decision of the deputy.”
T.R. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 950 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3(a). An ALJ may hold a hearing by telephone upon determining that to do so is proper and just and neither the claimant nor employer objects.”
Scott v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 725 N.E.2d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3. We interpret this provision to mean that “a reasonable opportunity for fair hearing” must include reasonable notice, which requires that parties receive actual, timely notice.”
Berzins v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 439 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. 1982). “” Administrative Rule and Regulation (§ 22-4-17-3)-2 (Burns 1976). The self-imposed duty is a sound one, no doubt facilitating the goal of a complete revelation of the facts relevant to the claim.”
Forni v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Id. at 500 (citations omitted). Osborn held mailing notice of a Review Board hearing satisfied the minimum requirements of due process; however, Scoff was not decided on due process grounds.”
Addison v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 397 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). “Ind.Code 22-4-17-3 provides in part: [A] referee, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify or reverse the findings of fact and decision of the deputy.”
Lush v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 944 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3. As for procedure, the Act provides that any decision of the Board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-3(a) — 2 cases
S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “" Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3(a). The ALJ may hold the hearing by telephone absent an objection from an interested party and after determining that a telephonic hearing is proper and just.”
T.R. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 950 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-17-3(a). An ALJ may hold a hearing by telephone upon determining that to do so is proper and just and neither the claimant nor employer objects.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-17-3(b) — 2 cases
Faye E. Warfield v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev. & IDWD U.I. Claims Adjudication (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Kathy K. Brunner v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev. (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.