Opinion
No. CV 03 0069940 S
September 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Carol A. Cochran appeals, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249b, the employment security board of review's (ESBR or board) decision denying her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The appeal was set down for trial on August 21, 2003.
The procedural history of this claim may be summarized as follows. In February 2002, Ms. Cochran filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits relating to her employment with Kelly Services, Inc. Her last day of work was June 22, 2001. She was initially awarded unemployment compensation benefits effective February 10, 2002. The employer appealed the award of benefits, claiming that the claimant had voluntarily left suitable work without good cause attributable to the employer. An appeals referee conducted a hearing on the appeal and on December 10, 2002 issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, reversing the award of benefits. The claimant thereafter appealed the appeals referee's decision to the ESBR. The ESBR issued a decision on January 31, 2003 affirming the denial of benefits. The claimant's motion to reopen was denied and this appeal followed.
As revealed from the Record of Proceedings before the Employment Security Appeals Division-Board of Review as filed with the court, the substance of the dispute concerns whether the claimant voluntarily quit her job. The claimant maintains that the employer made errors in her paycheck and that this was the reason she left her position. The employer provided evidence found credible by the appeals referee that the claimant left her position with the employer because of her pregnancy and her desire to spend time with her baby. She advised the employer by electronic mail on June 22, 2001 that "I will not be coming back to NNS (Newport News Shipbuilders). I will possibly be coming back to Kelly or Manpower after the baby is born." (Rec. p. 13). The ESBR found no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the appeals referee as they were supported in the record. Accordingly, it did not disturb the referee's finding that the claimant left her job without good cause attributable to CT Page 10881-bj the employer.
Scope of Review
"[A]ppeals from the board to the Superior Court are specifically exempted from governance by General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. All appeals from the board to the court are controlled by § 31-249b." Calnan v. Administrator Unemployment Compensation Act, 43 Conn. App. 779, 783, 686 A.2d 134 (1996).
Judicial review of any decision shall be allowed only after an aggrieved party has exhausted his or his remedies before the board. General Statutes §§ 31-248 (c) and 31-249a (c). Appeals within the unemployment compensation system must be taken in a timely fashion or they are to be dismissed. Gumbs v. Administrator, 9 Conn. App. 131, 133, 517 A.2d 257 (1986).
"To the extent that an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249b, concerns findings of fact, a court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the board of review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, 238 Conn. 273, 276, 679 A.2d 347 (1996). See also Practice Book § 22-9 (formerly § 519). "The court must not retry facts nor hear evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattatuck Museum — Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, supra, 238 Conn. 276. See also United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381, 385, 551 A.2d 724 (1988); Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 321, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981). "If, however, the issue is one of law, the court has the broader responsibility of determining whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed from such facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, supra, 238 Conn. 276. "Although the court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Church Homes, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 250 Conn. 297, 303-04, 735 A.2d 805 (1999).
"As a general rule, [t]he application of statutory criteria to determine a claimant's eligibility for unemployment compensation under General Statutes §§ 31-235 and 31-236 involves mixed questions of fact CT Page 10881-bk and law in which the expertise of the administrative agency is highly relevant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, supra, 209 Conn. 386. Questions involving matters of statutory construction are questions of law on which the agency's view is entitled to deference but is not dispositive. See DaSilva v. Administrator, 175 Conn. 562, 564, 402 A.2d 755 (1978). See also Bridgeport Metal Goods Mfg. Co. v. Administrator, 2 Conn. App. 1, 3, 475 A.2d 329 (1984).
Analysis
Significantly, Ms. Cochran has not filed a motion to correct the record before the administrator nor has she filed a motion to add evidence to the record pursuant to the provisions of § 22-5 of the Practice Book. The statutory appeals mechanism that the claimant invokes specifically restricts the manner by which findings of the board can be challenged. Findings of the board "shall be subject to correction only to the extent provided by section 22-9 of the Connecticut Practice Book." General Statutes § 31-249b. Section 22-9 of the Practice Book specifies that the trial court "cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses." See also Calnan v. Administrator, supra, 43 Conn. App. 783-84. For the purposes of this appeal, the court must accept the unchallenged administrative findings of facts.
Based upon these findings and others contained in the record, there is adequate support in the record to support the conclusion that Ms. Cochran left her job with the employer without good cause attributable to the employer. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Cosgrove, J. CT Page 10881-bl