Noreen A. Rahni 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 Noreen A. Rahni.

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 finding that the referee was required by law to dismiss the appeal because the claimant did not show good cause for the late filing of her appeal.

As the Board of Review found:

We find that the administrator's decision in this case was mailed on March 10, 2012, and that the claimant's appeal to the referee from that decision was filed on September 10, 2012, almost five months beyond the twenty-one day appeal period allowed by law.

The record of the referee's hearing reveals that the claimant received and read the administrator's determination but did not read the portion of the document which advised her of her appeal rights.   The administrator's determination contains an advisement in large bold letters, “IMPORTANT NOTICE OF YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS.”   This advisement specifically informed the claimant that an appeal must be filed by April 12, 2012.   We have consistently held that a party has not acted diligently in failing to read the notice of appeal rights.   See Senn v. Clearview, Inc., Board Case No. 626–BR–88 (7/21/88).   We have also consistently ruled that a claimant's preoccupation with other personal matters, which are not compelling in nature, does not provide good cause for the late filing of an appeal.   Sandino v. Jim Rybczk Plumbing & Heating Co., Board Case No. 1171–BR–88 (3/30/89).

Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision.   Board of Review Decision (January 25, 2013) at 2 (Rec. at 39).

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 # 102.00 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

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