Opinion
24CA0312
05-23-2024
Tracy Baldwin, Petitioner, v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Division of Unemployment Insurance PEB Team, Respondents.
Tracy Baldwin, Pro Se No Appearance for Respondents
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 35060-2023
ORDER AFFIRMED
Tracy Baldwin, Pro Se
No Appearance for Respondents
OPINION
LUM, JUDGE
¶ 1 In this unemployment benefits case, claimant, Tracy Baldwin, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) upholding the hearing officer's determination that he did not qualify for Mixed Earners Unemployment Compensation (MEUC). We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 In 2021, the United States Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included provisions for Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) benefits. 15 U.S.C.A. § 9023(b)(1) (2021). The Act provided for workers receiving state unemployment benefits or PEUC benefits to receive an additional $100 per week "in any case in which the individual received at least $5,000 of self-employment income (as defined in section 1402(b) of Title 26) in the most recent taxable year ending prior to the individual's application for regular compensation." 15 U.S.C.A. § 9023(b)(1)(C). These are known as MEUC benefits.
¶ 3 In 2019, Baldwin's employer, Simmons Manufacturing Co, LLC, terminated him. Thereafter, Baldwin filed an unemployment insurance claim with an effective date of September 8, 2019. In September 2021, the Division of Unemployment Insurance (Division) informed Baldwin about the MEUC program. Baldwin responded to their questionnaire indicating that he did not have self-employment income in 2019. A deputy for the Division issued a decision informing Baldwin that he did not qualify for MEUC benefits because he did not have self-employment income.
¶ 4 Baldwin appealed the deputy's decision, and a hearing was held on his MEUC benefits claim. The hearing officer found that Baldwin had W-2 wages, but did not have any self-employment income during the relevant year. Thus, he concluded that Baldwin was not eligible for MEUC benefits.
¶ 5 On appeal, the Panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision because the record supported the hearing officer's findings and conclusions.
II. Discussion
¶ 6 On appeal, Baldwin asserts that the information is not correct and that there might have been fraudulent activity on his account. However, as he did in the hearing and in his appeal to the Panel, he acknowledges that he was not self-employed. We perceive no basis to disturb the Panel's order.
¶ 7 We may set aside the Panel's decision only if (1) the Panel acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact do not support the decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-107(6)(a)-(d), C.R.S. 2023.
¶ 8 Entitlement to unemployment benefits is a factual issue to be resolved by the trier of fact. See Eckart v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 775 P.2d 97, 99 (Colo.App. 1989). The hearing officer is the finder of fact in unemployment proceedings. See Goodwill Indus. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 862 P.2d 1042, 1046 (Colo.App. 1993).
¶ 9 The hearing officer's findings are binding on review if there is substantial evidence in the record to support them. See § 8-74-107(4); Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78, ¶ 17 (a reviewing court is bound by the hearing officer's and the Panel's findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence in the record).
¶ 10 Here, although Baldwin asserts that "the information is not correct," he does not elaborate on that assertion, and it isn't clear what information he refers to. But in any event, because Baldwin admitted at the hearing that he was not self-employed during the relevant time, or at any time, substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding that he was not eligible for MEUC benefits. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 9023(b)(1)(C). (F, pp. 78-79, 88) Thus, the Panel did not err in affirming the hearing officer's decision, and we perceive no basis to disturb it. See Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist, ¶ 17.
III. Disposition
¶ 11 We affirm the Panel's order.
JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE BROWN concur.