Bernadine Rawling v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, et al (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an appeal by a former employee of Aaron M. Gross, DMO, LLC, from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.   The Employment Security Board of Review (Board) has certified and filed with the court a record of proceedings pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 31-249b.

The record reflects that the Administrator determined that the appellant was ineligible for benefits.   The appellant then appealed to a Referee, who conducted a de novo hearing in accordance with Connecticut General Statute § 31-242.   The Referee determined that the appellant left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause and affirmed the Administrator's finding of ineligibility.   The appellant then appealed to the Board which adopted the factual findings of the Referee and affirmed her decision.   The appellant then took this appeal from the decision of the Board to this court.

The role of this court in deciding an appeal of this nature is limited by Section 22-9 of the Connecticut Practice Book, Sec. 22-9.-Function of Court.

(a) Such appeals are heard by the court upon the certified copy of the record filed by the board.   The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence ․ It cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses ․

The Supreme Court has enunciated the role of the court in clear and unequivocal language:

“It is well settled that ‘[a]n unemployment commissioner is an administrative officer.   Upon an appeal from his decision the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo.   It is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact.   Nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the commissioner.   It may go no further than to determine whether the commissioner acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally.  Lanyon v. Administrator, 137 Conn. 20, 28, 89 A.2d 558.   The courts are bound by the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact made by the commissioner.  Carper v. Administrator, 139 Conn. 515, 520, 95 A.2d 378;  Almada v. Administrator, 139 Conn. 380, 391, 77 A.2d 765.’  Bartlett v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 497, 505, 115 A.2d 671.  ‘If his [the commissioner's] conclusions are reasonably and logically drawn, the court is legally powerless to alter them.’  Stapleton v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 160, 165, 112 A.2d 211;  see also Practice Book §§ 435, 445.”  Lockwood v. Killian, 172 Conn. 492, 496.

The Board found as a fact that the appellant left suitable work voluntarily and without cause.   Under the provisions of Section 31-326(1) this finding bars her from receiving benefits.   All of the facts found by the Board are fully supported by the record.

The court finds that the conclusions of the Board are supported by its findings of fact and this court cannot disturb them.

The appeal is dismissed.

William L. Hadden, Jr.

Judge Trial Referee

Hadden, William L., J.T.R.