Wold v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Full title: David Wold v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al

Court: Superior Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jul 21, 2016

FSTCV165015280S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 21, 2016)

Opinion

FSTCV165015280S

07-21-2016

David Wold v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Filed July 21, 2016

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 102.00

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

The court has reviewed the record certified to it by the Board of Review, the defendant's motion for judgment, the plaintiff's pleadings, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff David Wold.

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing. It is limited to reviewing the record certified to it by the Board of Review. Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing. In order for the court to review the facts, a motion to correct the findings must have been filed. That was not done in this case, although it is clear that notice was given concerning that procedure in the decision itself sent to the plaintiff.

In the recent case of Gary A. Chicatell v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation, 145 Conn.App. 143, 74 A.3d 519, decided August 20, 2013 the Appellate Court stated the following: " [T]he court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tosado v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn.App. 266, 274, 22 A.3d 675 (2011). Further, it bears repeating that " [i]n the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, the court is not entitled to retry the facts or hear evidence. It considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether . . . there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached. [The court] cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 275, citing Practice Book § 22-9(a). So that even if this court were to disagree with the result, it is limited in its review.

The court understands the claim of the plaintiff, but is by law required to treat this as a record review not a new hearing. The issue, therefore, is whether there was evidence in the record to support the denial of benefits as found by the agency.

As the Board of Review found:

In this case before us, the claimant admitted that his former employer provided him with a separation packet, or " pink slip, " at the time of his separation. The separation packet specifically advises claimants on the first page, " To protect your benefits, do not delay filing ." Despite this advisement, the claimant did not contact the administrator to determine whether he should delay filing until after his severance pay expired or until he was no longer earning sufficient income in self-employment. The claimant did not allege that the employer advised him against filing or provided him with any misinformation.

The board and the courts have ruled that a claimant's belief that he or she is not eligible for benefits, where it is not based on any misinformation from the employer or the Labor Department, does not provide good cause for filing a late initiating claim. See Carpenter v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, Superior Court, Judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 233247 (January 8, 1985); see also Riso v. Administrator, Board Case No. 488-BR-4 (5/15/04). We have also declined to find good cause where an individual receives a pink slip but delays filing without asking the administrator how severance would affect his or her eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. See Chapitis v. Administrator, Board Case No. 1027-BR-05 (8/5/05). The record reveals that the claimant did not attempt to contact the administrator for clarification until June of 2015. Therefore, we agree with the referee that the claimant has not established good cause for failing to file a timely initial claim for benefits.

Board of Review Decision (September 11, 2015) at 2-3 (Rec. at 31-32).

The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence. The court finds the decision of the Board of Review on the merits follows reasonably from the facts found, and is correct.

The decision is affirmed, and the defendant's Motion for Judgment, Motion #102.00 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.