§ 8-74-107(6)(c)-(d), C.R.S. 2022; see Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. , 2017 CO 78, ¶ 17, 396 P.3d 1114, 1118–19. We review de novo ultimate conclusions of fact and ultimate legal conclusions.

Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. , 2017 CO 78, ¶ 17, 396 P.3d 1114, and requires a case-specific consideration of the totality of the circumstances using an objective standard, Morris , 843 P.2d at 79. ¶ 14 We will uphold the Panel's decision unless the findings of fact do not support the decision or the decision is erroneous as a matter of law.

¶ 13 The Act is designed to ease "the burden of unemployment on those who are involuntarily unemployed through no fault of their own." Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. , 2017 CO 78, ¶ 18, 396 P.3d 1114 (quoting Colo. Div. of Emp. & Training v. Hewlett , 777 P.2d 704, 706 (Colo. 1989) ); see § 8-73-108(1)(a) (setting forth the guiding legislative principle that "unemployment insurance is for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own").

We also note that, on remand, the Panel is to review the matter on the record before it, and consider only those arguments previously asserted by M & A. The Panel should also determine whether Holm was at fault for the separation using the generally recognized legal standards for that inquiry. See Mesa Cty. Pub. Library Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2017 CO 78, ¶ 18, 396 P.3d 1114 ; Cole , 964 P.2d at 618-19. III.

¶ 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).