Janet Trifero v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2011)

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, the plaintiff's objection to the motion for judgment, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff Janet Trifero.

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing.   It is limited to reviewing the record certified to it by the Board of Review.   Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing.   In order for the court to review the facts, a motion to correct the findings must have been filed.   That was not done in this case, although it is clear that notice was given concerning that procedure in the decision itself sent to the plaintiff.

The court understands the claim of the plaintiff, but is by law required to treat this as a record review.   The Board of Review determined that the claimant did not have good cause to backdate her benefit claim which she filed June 27, 2010, and attempted to backdate to September 7, 2008.   As the Appeals Referee found:

The claimant credibly testified that she attempted to apply for unemployment benefits in January 2009, however did not qualify at that time.   The administrator directed the claimant to reapply for unemployment benefits in April 2009.   The claimant failed to do so because she was working part-time.   The claimant did not have any work in August 2009, but did not initiate her new claim for benefits at that time.   If the claimant believed that she was prevented from filing for unemployment benefits due to her part-time employment, that reason ended when her part-time employment ended in July 2009.   The claimant failed to demonstrate due diligence when she failed to file as directed in April 2009, or in August 2009, when her employment ended.   That lack of due diligence precludes the referee from finding good cause pursuant to Section 31–222–13(c)(4) of the Connecticut State Agencies Regulations.

The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence.   The court finds the decision of the Board of Review on the merits follows reasonably from the facts found, and the correct application of 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, Motion # 102.00 dated March 25, 2011 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.