Pamela J. Moultrie v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

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, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff Pamela J. Moultrie.

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.

In the recent case of Gary A. Chicatell v. Administrator Unemployment Compensation, decided August 20, 2013, the Appellate Court stated the following:  “[T]he court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Tosado v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn.App. 266, 274, 22 A.3d 675 (2011).   Further, it bears repeating that “[i]n the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, the court is not entitled to retry the facts or hear evidence.   It considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether ․ there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.  [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.)  Id., 275, citing Practice Book § 22–9(a).   So that even if this court were to disagree with the result, it is limited in its review.

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 issue, therefore, is whether the decision of the Board of Review was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal in determining that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was discharged for wilful misconduct.

As the Board of Review found:

In the case before us, the claimant was the appealing party.   The referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law accurately reflect the testimony and documentary evidence that was entered into the record.   Moreover, the claimant did not dispute that her handwriting appeared on the application for the summer camp in which the claimant answered no to the question concerning her criminal convictions.   Thus, there is nothing in the record that would cause us to overturn the referee's determination that the claimant falsified this application.

Based on the existing record, we find that the referee has adequately addressed the claimant's contentions.   Moreover, the parties have not offered any argument in support of or in opposition to the appeal which would disturb the referee's findings of fact.   We further find that the findings are supported by the record, and that the conclusion reached by the referee is consistent with those findings and the provisions of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act.

Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision.

Board of Review Decision (April 11, 2013) at 2 (Rec. at 55).

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 is correct.

The decision is affirmed, and the defendant's Motion for Judgment, Motion # 101.00 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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