Opinion
C. A. No. 02A-08-011-JEB.
Submitted: March 10, 2003.
Decided: June 9, 2003.
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Decision Affirmed.
Appearances: David Mayers, pro se, Wilmington, DE, Appellee.
Jill S. DiSciullo, Esquire and David H. Williams, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Appellant Ingleside Homes, Inc.
Stephani Ballard, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
OPINION
This is the Court's decision on Employer Ingleside Homes' appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) granting benefits to Claimant David Mayers. For the reasons explained below, the Board's decision is affirmed.
FACTS
Claimant worked as a nursing assistant at Ingleside Homes from December 2000 through April 29, 2002. Claimant hurt his back at work on March 15 or 16, 2002, and missed 15 days of work as a result. On March 25, 2002, Karen Peterson, Ingleside's human resources director, sent Claimant a letter informing him that if he did not provide medical documentation for each missed day, he would be fired. Claimant had documentation from Christiana Care Occupational Health Services, but he did not provide exactly what Peterson requested. He was terminated on March 29, 2002.
Claimant filed for unemployment insurance benefits, and the Board granted his petition based on his medical records. Employer filed a timely appeal to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a decision of the Board, the Court's role is to determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from legal error. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility or make factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the Board's findings.
Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (Del.Super. 1979). See also Del. Code Ann. tit. 19 § 3323f(a).
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1998).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1960).
DISCUSSION
Other than the bare facts presented above, the parties dispute every relevant fact in this case. They disagree as to whether Peterson asked Claimant for additional documentation, whether she tried to reach him by phone at home, whether he attended physical therapy, whether he was able to work full duty or light duty, whether light duty was provided for him, and whether his supervisor was aware of the reason for his absences.
However, the record shows that during the relevant time period Claimant provided four medical reports from Christiana Care Occupational Health Services stating first that Claimant was unable to work and later that he could work sedentary duty only. For this reason, the Board granted Claimant's petition for unemployment benefits, finding that Claimant had not been terminated for just cause because he had not acted in wilful or wanton disregard for his employer's interests or his employment duties. Based on the medical records, the Court finds that this conclusion is based on substantial evidence and is free from legal error.
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Del. 1981).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Board's decision granting unemployment benefits to David Mayers is Affirmed.
It Is So ORDERED.