Anastasia I. Skipitaris v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an unemployment compensation appeal brought by the plaintiff, Anastasia I. Skipitaris, from the decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review (Board) affirming the determination that the petitioner was ineligible for unemployment benefits.   For the reasons stated below, the court affirms the decision of the Board and dismisses the appeal.

Procedural History

The following procedural history is relevant to the appeal.   On April 26, 2012, the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act held a hearing to consider the plaintiff's benefits claim.   On May 3, 2012, the administrator denied the claim, finding that the plaintiff left her employment for personal reasons without good cause that was attributable to her employer, Great Expressions Dental Center, P.C. The plaintiff then appealed that decision, and after a hearing, on May 29, 2012, the referee affirmed the administrator's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.   The referee determined that the claimant did not meet the statutory requirement for voluntary departure under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–236(a)(2)(A)(i) because she left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer and that she did not give her employer a reasonable amount of time and opportunity to resolve the matter.   The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Board of Review.   On October 16, 2012, the Board, in a written determination affirmed the decision of the administrator and dismissed the appeal.

The claimant appealed the Board's decision to this court, which set a briefing schedule.   The plaintiff did not file a brief in support of her appeal.

Discussion

This court's review of decisions of the Board is limited.   The court cannot retry the facts or hear evidence but rather sits as an appellate court to review only the record certified and filed by the board of review.  Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 321–22, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981).  “The court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the board of review.   The court must not retry the facts nor hear evidence ․ [The court] cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Lantieri v. Administrator, Unemployment Commission, 136 Conn.App. 174, 182, 43 A.3d 815 (2012).   The court “is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable factual conclusions made by the appeals referee.”  DaSilva v. Administrator, 175 Conn. 562, 402 A.2d 755 (1978);  Bartlett v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 497, 505, 115 A.2d 671 (1955).   “Judicial review of the conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited.   The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the board of review has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.”  Burnham v. Adminstrator, supra, 184 Conn. 321–22.

The court has reviewed the record in this matter, the decisions of the Board, the referee and the administrator, as well as the defendant's brief.   The Board adopted the decision of the referee, including his factual and credibility determinations.   The plaintiff has failed to properly challenge those factual findings and the court finds that such findings are not clearly erroneous.   This court cannot disturb such findings, and the plaintiff has not provided this court any basis for doing so having failed to file a brief in this matter.   Thus, the court finds that on this record, the Board acted reasonably, legally and within its discretion.

Accordingly, the court affirms the decision of the Board and the appeal is dismissed.

Cobb, J.

Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.