Elmore L. Womack v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

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 Elmore L. Womack.

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 not a new hearing.   The Board of Review determined that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was discharged for disqualifying absenteeism.

As the Board of Review found:

We agree with the referee that the claimant's final absence on September 20, 2010, was without notice or good cause and preceded by at least two disqualifying absences.   The record reflects that the claimant was absent from work on May 17, 2010.   He provided a medical note, which is dated May 4, 2010, which released him to work on May 6. There is no evidence of further treatment between May 6 and May 17.   Therefore, we find the claimant was absent without good cause on May 17, 2010.

The claimant was also absent from work on June 1, 2010.   Although he provided a medical note dated June 7, 2010, the medical note does not excuse the claimant's absence from work on June 1. There is no evidence that claimant was absent on June 1 due to medical reasons or due to any other reasons that would constitute good cause.   Finally, the claimant was absent from work on August 3, 2010, and has not established good cause for that absence.   The claimant had not received medical treatment since he was released to work on July 11, 2010.   We thus conclude that the claimant was discharged for disqualifying absenteeism.

Board of Review Decision (July 19, 2011) at 2–3 (Rec. At 78–79).

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 November 15, 2011 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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