Summary
denying claimant benefits and concluding that the claimant was self-employed because claimant acknowledged that he operated his own business and attempted to make the business successful despite working less than full-time hours and earning no wages from the business
Summary of this case from Irfan v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.Opinion
C. A. No. 06A-10-013-JEB.
Submitted: September 4, 2007.
Decided: December 12, 2007.
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.Decision Affirmed.
Paul R. Miller, 102 Clement Drive, Bear, Delaware.
Herschmann, Inc., Pro Se, 1665 Orchard Drive, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
Mary Page Bailey, Esquire and Tom Ellis, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
OPINION
Claimant Paul Miller appeals the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's decision to deny his application for workers' compensation. Miller was denied benefits at each stage of the application process. The claims deputy found that Miller was ineligible for benefits because he owned his own business and was therefore not available for work. The Appeals Referee found that Miller was not unemployed because he owned a business. The Board found that Claimant was self-employed and therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Court agrees and affirms the Board's decision.
Both the Referee and the Board conducted a fact-finding hearing. The relevant portions of Claimant's testimony are summarized as follows. Miller testified that shortly after he was terminated from Hirschmann, he started a computer-related business called Network Warehouse that was global in scope. Miller stated several times that he was the sole proprietor, but he also stated that the business is owned by himself and 26 other people who conduct it online.
Claimant testified that he got up at 3 p.m. to place business calls to Taipei, where either a customer or a co-worker is located. He spent 20 to 25 hours per week on the phone providing technical support . He sometimes spent 80 hours per week in his phone calls. The calls lasted anywhere from 15 minutes to 4 hours a piece. Miller stated that he had not earned any income from Network Warehouse. It must be said that Miller's testimony about his business was often inconsistent and confusing, a fact also noted by the Board. The best description that can be gleaned from the record is that the business was a computer-based organization that provided on-line consulting services to customers from various locations.
One witness appeared on Miller's behalf to testify that he had been looking for work. The Appeals Referee appeared as the "agency witness," testifying that the agency stood on the record.
The Board affirmed the finding of the Referee that Miller was in the start-up phase of his own business and that he was not unemployed, as that word is defined in the Workers' Compensation statute. On appeal to this Court, Claimant simply describes the events and asks for unemployment benefits.
On appeal, Miller contends that Network Warehouse is no longer in business. This Court is limited to reviewing facts which were presented to the Board and therefore may not consider this assertion. From a legal standpoint, the decision to close a failing business does not entitle the business owner to unemployment benefits.
In reviewing a decision of an administrative board, the Court must determine whether the Board's findings and conclusions are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. The Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make factual findings.
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3323(a).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965).
Section 3301 of the Workers' Compensation Act defines "unemployment" as follows:
Unemployment" exists and an individual is "unemployed" in any week during which the individual performs no services and with respect to which no wages are payable to the individual or any week of less than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect to such work are less than the individual's weekly benefit amount plus whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual's weekly benefit amount. Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3301(17) (2005) (emphasis added).
The second definition of unemployment, which is highlighted above, fits Miller's situation during the period he was seeking unemployment benefits. He worked fewer than full time hours and he received no wages at all, which of course is less than any portion of what his weekly benefits would be as a recipient of unemployment compensation. By this standard, it must be said that Miller was unemployed. However, unemployment is different from self-employment. The workers' compensation statutes do not address self-employment, but Delaware case law provides that a self-employed person may not received unemployment compensation. Self-employment is a bar to receiving unemployment benefits because the purpose of unemployment is not to support the early stages of a new business. Instead, the purpose of unemployment compensation is to prevent the spread of unemployment and to benefit people unemployed through no fault of their own. In this case, Miller acknowledged that he operated his own business and described his attempts to make the business successful. This is self-employment. The Court concludes that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. The Board's decision finding Miller ineligible for benefits because of self-employment is Affirmed.
Weeraratne v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1995 WL 840722, at *2 (Del.Super.).
Jones v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 2001 WL 755379, at *2 (Del.Super.).
It Is So ORDERED.