Manuel Matos v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This is a statutory appeal concerning the denial of unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff's application was initially granted by the administrator.   Upon the employer's appeal, a hearing was conducted de novo by a referee, who reversed the decision of the administrator.   Upon the plaintiff's appeal, the board of review adopted the referee's findings of fact and affirmed his decision.   The plaintiff appealed the decision of the board of review to the Superior Court, pursuant to Section 31–249b of the General Statutes.

The plaintiff did not file with the board a motion for correction of the findings as required by Practice Book § 22–4.   The plaintiff has filed no position statement in support of his appeal.   The defendant administrator has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–249b, the Superior Court does not undertake de novo review for unemployment compensation appeals from the Employment Security Board of Review.   Rather, based upon the record submitted by the parties, the court must determine whether the board could reasonably arrive at the factual findings and the conclusions of law that form the basis of this appeal.   See Finklestein v. Administrator, 192 Conn. 104, 112–13 (1984).

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, this court is not entitled to “retry the facts or hear evidence.   It considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether ․ there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.  [The court] cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.”  Conn. Practice Book § 22–9.

Here the board adopted the factual findings of the referee with regard to the reason for denying the plaintiff's application for benefits.   In such a case, the Superior Court reviews that decision only to determine if the board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.  Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn., 492, 495–96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).

ANALYSIS:

Section 31–236(a)(2)(B) of the General Statutes states that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he is discharges or suspended for wilful misconduct in the course of his employment.   The board of review adopted the findings of the referee as to wilful misconduct of the plaintiff.   The plaintiff did not file a motion to correct the findings.   Because there was no motion to correct the findings of the Board, this court is not entitled to entertain a challenge to those findings.  Guevara v. Administrator, supra.

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings, the court is limited to a review of the record to determine if the board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.   The plaintiff has not provided any position statement for the court's consideration.   There is nothing in the record to indicate that the decision of the board was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Id.

CONCLUSION:

The appeal is dismissed.

Robert E. Young, J.

Young, Robert E., J.