Scott D. Thomas 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 Thomas D. Scott.

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 wilful misconduct.

As the Board of Review found:

In the case before us, the claimant alleges that he failed to attend the referee's hearing on January 13, 2011, because he had recently started a new job.   The claimant did not contact the appeals division to request a postponement.   Although he alleges he unsuccessfully tried to reach the administrator by telephone, he waited until receiving the referee's January 26, 2011 decision before contacting the appeals division on February 7, 2011.   The claimant has not exercised diligence in this case.   Therefore, the referee did not abuse her discretion in denying the claimant's motion to reopen.

By choosing not to attend the referee's hearing despite having received notice of the hearing, the claimant has waived the right to object to the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law which were based on the testimony and evidence presented at that hearing.   See Mastroianni v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 66334 (July 16, 1984);  see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31–237g–26(c).

We find that the findings of fact on which the referee's decision was based are supported by the evidence and testimony introduced at the referee's hearing.   We further find that the conclusion reached by the referee is consistent with those findings and the provisions of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act governing the issue presented by the appeal.   Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision.

Board of Review Decision (July 12, 2011) at 2–3 (Rec. At 59).

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 December 5, 2011 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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