Jorge L. Oquendo v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

ORDER

The petitioner requests that the order of the employment security board of review denying him unemployment compensation be reversed, and the matter returned to the appeals referee for a new hearing.

The court has reviewed the entire record certified by the board, paying particular attention to the written decision of the appeals referee.   There is nothing in that decision evidencing that the referee misapplied the burden of proof, as claimed by the petitioner.   To the contrary, the decision demonstrates that, while (or because) the referee believed it to be “close case,” he carefully reviewed the documentary evidence supplied by the employer to determine whether it had satisfied its burden of proof.   He concluded that it had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner had been discharged for wilful misconduct and was, therefore, not entitled to unemployment compensation.

As far as the petitioner's challenges to the referee's conduct of the hearing are concerned, adjudication of those claims would require the court to review a transcript of the hearing.   The petitioner has failed to avail himself of any of the available methods to make such a transcript a part of the record.   See, e.g., Practice Book § 22–1(c).  Therefore, those claims cannot be reviewed.   Nothing in the available record suggests to the court that it should exercise its discretion under the rule to order the board to prepare and verify such a transcript.   Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT

Joseph M. Shortall

Judge Trial Referee

Shortall, Joseph M., J.T.R.