Santiago Lopez 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 denied by the administrator due to lack of good cause for late filing of a claim for benefits.   Upon the employee's appeal, a hearing was conducted de novo by a referee, who issued findings of fact and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.   Upon the plaintiff's further appeal, the board of review adopted the referee's findings of fact and affirmed her decision.   The plaintiff appealed the decision of the board of review to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249.

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.   The court conducted a hearing on October 3, 2011 and heard from the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Under General Statutes § 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, 470 A.2d 1196 (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.”  Practice Book § 22–9.

Because the plaintiff has not filed a motion to correct the board's findings, this court reviews the board's decision only to determine if the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.  Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495–96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).

ANALYSIS:

Here, the board adopted the factual findings of the referee.   The board concluded that the plaintiff's indecisiveness or deliberate decision not to file an appeal within the statutorily prescribed appeal period did not allow the board to exercise jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal.   Record, P. 34.   The board concluded that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the late filing of his appeal.  Id.

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. Neither in his appeal nor at the hearing did the plaintiff assert this contention.   The board's decision is logically based upon the findings of fact.   The court has no basis upon which to grant the plaintiff's appeal.

CONCLUSION:

The appeal is dismissed.

Robert E. Young, J.

Young, Robert E., J.