Abramowitz v. Director of Div. of Employment Security

11 Citing cases

  1. DSCI Corp. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy

    449 Mass. 597 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Remanding to department for clarification of record and fashioning of appropriate remedy

    We do not substitute our views as long as the department's determinations of fact are based on substantial evidence. Andrews v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 446 Mass. 611, 617 (2006), quoting Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983). DSCI has not met its burden to show that the department's conclusion was not based on substantial evidence.

  2. Andrews v. Civil Service Commission

    446 Mass. 611 (Mass. 2006)   Cited 27 times
    Hearing officer makes credibility determinations

    However, the hearing officer "was free to believe . . . testimony [of the acting director of the BSI and the written job classification] and to disbelieve [the testimony] of the plaintiff." Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec, 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983). "If the [hearing officer's] findings are . . . supported [by evidence], it is not open to the [Superior] Court or to this court to substitute other views as to what should be the determination of the facts."

  3. LeBeau v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment & Training

    422 Mass. 533 (Mass. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    Our conclusion is supported by analogy to cases that consider the effect on unemployment benefits of a voluntary resignation followed by an unsuccessful attempt to withdraw the resignation. See Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168 (1983) (this court upheld denial of unemployment benefits because plaintiff voluntarily resigned and caused his own unemployment). A majority of courts that have considered this issue are in accord.

  4. Jahn v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

    489 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    This finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983) (standard of review). The tax returns of the business indicate a net income of $8,445 in 1981; a loss of $4,634 in 1982; and a net income of $3,660 in 1983.

  5. White v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

    395 Mass. 635 (Mass. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    In reviewing such a decision, we must determine whether the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 172 (1983). "Substantial evidence is 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,' taking 'into account whatever in the record detracts from its weight.'"

  6. Zirelli v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

    475 N.E.2d 375 (Mass. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    O'Brien v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 393 Mass. 482, 486 (1984). Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983). The following evidence supporting the review examiner's decision meets the substantial evidence test.

  7. Glasser v. Director of Division of Employment Security

    393 Mass. 574 (Mass. 1984)   Cited 23 times

    Such a finding by the examiner will be set aside only if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. See Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983); Dohoney v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 377 Mass. 333, 337 n. 3 (1979). We conclude that the examiner's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

  8. O'Brien v. Director of Division of Employment Security

    393 Mass. 482 (Mass. 1984)   Cited 35 times
    Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the notice of hearing before the Division of Employment Security failed to inform him adequately of one of the issues to be addressed, where plaintiff never objected to consideration of that issue, did not express surprise that it was being considered, and did not request continuance or additional time to provide evidence

    When, as here, the examiner decides that the plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion in proving eligibility ( Smith v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 384 Mass. 758, 761 [1981]), we can set aside that finding only if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983). Nantucket Cottage Hosp. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 388 Mass. 1006 (1983).

  9. Guarino v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

    393 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1984)   Cited 38 times

    The examiner had no obligation to believe the plaintiff's testimony. Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 173 (1983). If the judge's conclusion was based on his having been persuaded by the recorded testimony before the hearing examiner that the facts were such as to compel a determination that the plaintiff was entitled to benefits, he mistook his role. The judge does not properly act as fact finder in employment security cases.

  10. Cahalen v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment & Training

    41 Mass. App. Ct. 26 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    " This finding is supported by substantial evidence. See Abramowitz v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168, 172 (1983). The plaintiff cannot show that she was compelled to leave Hi Tech for necessitous or urgent reasons.