Zina Maymin v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

The court has reviewed the record certified to it by the Board of Review, the defendant's motion for judgment, the plaintiff's pleadings, and has considered all of the submissions and argument.   There was a hearing before this court on February 25, 2010.   The plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing.   Thereafter, the court on review of the record observed that the record submitted included information about the appeal of another individual.   The court ordered submission of a new record which was completed on March 18, 2010.

On May 1, 2009, the administrator denied the claimant's request to invalidate her new claim for unemployment benefits effective August 17, 2008.   The administrator ruled that because the claimant's request was made more than six months after the issuance of its determination, it had no authority to grant her request.

As to the standard of review, our Supreme Court has indicated that this court has a limited role when reviewing an unemployment compensation appeal.  “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.   The court must not retry the facts nor hear evidence ․ 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.   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.”   (Citations omitted.)  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381, 385-86, 551 A.2d 724 (1988).

As to the legal merits of the appeal, “[our] ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence whether the agency in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 417, 828 A.2d 609 (2003).   The issue is whether “the decision of the board was logically and rationally supported by the evidence.”  Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn.App. 779, 285, 686 A.2d 134 (1996).

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing.   It is limited to reviewing the records certified to it by the Board of Review.   Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing.

The Board of Review determined that the claimant, Zina Maymin, was ineligible to receive benefits because she filed her appeal beyond the twenty-one-day filing period and he did not show good cause for the untimely filing of his appeal.

The decision of the Board of Review follows reasonably from the facts found and correctly applies the law to those facts.   The decision is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.   The decision is affirmed and the defendant's motion for judgment dated September 15, 2009 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

Brazzel-Massaro, J.

Brazzel-Massaro, Barbara, J.