Lisa Misite v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an appeal from the Employment Security Board of Review.   The Administrator denied the plaintiff's initial application for benefits.   The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Administrator.   An Appeals Referee then conducted a de novo hearing, and in a decision dated November 28, 2011, made findings of fact and affirmed the decision of the Administrator, and held that the plaintiff voluntarily left suitable employment without good cause attributable to the employer.   As a result, the plaintiff was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A).   The plaintiff then appealed that decision to the Board of Review, and it rendered a decision adopting the referee's findings of fact and affirmed the referee's decision.   The plaintiff then filed a motion to reopen the board's decision which was denied.

“The power of the trial court in appeals of this kind is very limited:  ‘the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo;  it is not its function to adjudicate questions of fact, nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the [Appeals Referee or] board ․’ Johnson v. Administrator, 3 Conn.App. 264, 276 (1985).   Its function is to determine only if the board acted rationally and logically or illegally and in abuse of its discretion.”   Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153 (1985).  “To the extent that an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249b, concerns findings of fact, a court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the Board of Review.”  Latina v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1999).   The plaintiff in the case at bar did not file a motion to correct any of the referee or board's factual findings per Practice Book § 22–4.   As a result, this “prevents further review of [the] facts found by the board.”  JSF Promotions, Inc. v Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422–23 (2003);  Belica v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 126 Conn.App. 779, 786–87 (2011).

General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A) provides that an individual shall be ineligible for benefits “[i]f, in the opinion of the administrator, the individual has left suitable work and without good cause attributable to the employer ․” In the case at bar, the board and referee found that the plaintiff on September 14, 2011, told a supervisor that she was quitting her job immediately, and did not tell her why she decided to quit.   They also found that the plaintiff did not quit her job because her bus route was altered, and that the plaintiff also phoned her supervisor on September 19, 2011, and did not attempt to rescind her resignation.

Based upon the foregoing record and findings of fact, the board ruled that the plaintiff voluntarily left suitable work without good cause attributable to the employer.

The board is free to weigh the opposing testimony and to accept or reject the competing arguments.   Based upon the record before the court, the board's ruling is reasonable and consistent with the applicable statutes, regulations and case law.   The record supports its finding that the plaintiff voluntarily left suitable employment without good cause attributable to her employer.   There was ample evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.   Accordingly, there is no basis for this court to conclude that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or otherwise abused its discretion in reaching its decision.

The decision of the board is affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Frechette, J.

Frechette, Matthew E., J.