Steven Levine v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The present action is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff Steven Levine resigned from Adina For Life, Inc. (the employer) on October 22, 2010 for various reasons to include an increased commute.

On June 30, 2011 the defendant, Administrator, found the plaintiff eligible for unemployment benefits.   On November 4, 2011, a referee heard the appeal of the employer which was filed on July 21, 2011.   On November 22, 2011 the administrator's decision awarding unemployment benefits was reversed and the plaintiff was disqualified from receiving benefits.

On December 16, 2011, the plaintiff appealed the referee's decision to the Board of Review per Connecticut General Statutes § 31–248.   On May 3, 2012, the Board of Review (the Board) affirmed the referee's decision dismissing the appeal.   On June 4, 2012, the plaintiff appealed to Superior Court under Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b.   On August 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed through present counsel a motion for extension of time to file a motion to correct, which was denied on September 25, 2012.¹

The matter comes to this Court on the administrative appeal docket pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b.

The appropriate standard of review with regard to [an unemployment compensation appeal] is limited.   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.   The court must not retry facts nor hear evidence ․ The Superior court, therefore, is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact made by the appeals referee ․ Although the court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.

(Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Latina v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159, 733 A.2d 885 (1999).

Connecticut General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that “an individual shall be ineligible for benefits:  ․ if, in the opinion of the administrator, the individual had left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer ․”

The Board of Review found in this case that:

The claimant resigned one business day prior to the date that the employer required him to report to its newly established offices in Norwalk, Connecticut.   At the time of hire, the claimant had specifically agreed to do so.   While the claimant maintains that he did not leave the job on that basis, there is nothing in the record which supports that he resigned for other than for personal reasons.   Personal reasons that are unrelated to the working conditions will not generally afford an individual good cause for quitting, even though the personal reasons may be compelling.   Therefore, an individual who leaves suitable work because of a personal decision does not have good cause for leaving a job.   Morin v. Rose Construction Co., Board Case No. 1742–BR–96 (12/27/96).   We thus conclude that the claimant did not have good cause attributable to the employer to leave the job.   Board of Review Decision (May 3, 2012) at 4 (Rec. at 122).

As indicated previously, the court does not retry facts or hear evidence.   United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, supra, 385.   Nor does the court review a conclusion of the Board which rests on the weight of the evidence and credibility determinations.  Howell v. Administrator, 174 Conn. 529, 532, 391 A.2d 165 (1974);  Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153, 493 A.2d 248 (1985).   The decision of the Board of Review on the merits should follow reasonably from the facts found and the correct application of law to those facts.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact in this case, the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment for his failure to attend work under the given and known circumstances.   Pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249b, the court may not undertake a de novo review of unemployment compensation appeals from the employment security board of review and is bound by those facts found by the board and the reasonable conclusions it reached therefrom.   The court may go no further than to determine whether the decision appealed from is unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Burnham v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 184 Conn. 317, 321–22, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981).   A party is barred from challenging the board's findings of fact on appeal to the court unless that party has timely filed a motion to correct the findings pursuant to Practice Book § 22–4 and § 22–8.  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422, 828 A.2d 609 (2003);  Shah v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 114 Conn.App. 170, 176, 968 A.2d 971 (2009).

In this case, no such motion to correct was filed, and based on the record before it, this court cannot say that the decision of the Board of Review was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Due to the unexplained lapse of time between decisions by the Administrator and the Board, any benefits paid to plaintiff should not be subject to retroactive recovery by the Administrator..  FN1. Due to the unexplained lapse of time between decisions by the Administrator and the Board, any benefits paid to plaintiff should not be subject to retroactive recovery by the Administrator.

Roche, Vincent E., J.