Catherine D. Dawson v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an unemployment compensation appeal to the Superior Court filed by the former employee, Catherine Dawson on July 11, 2013.   She is appealing the July 10, 2013 decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review (Board), in which the Board adopted and modified the Referee's finding of facts and affirmed the decision that Ms. Dawson was ineligible to receive benefits, that she was liable to pay back an overpayment of benefits, and that she was subject to an administrative penalty of a forfeiture of five weeks of future benefits based on her failure to report her income when she collected benefits.   On September 19, 2013, Ms. Dawson filed a Request for Argument and the court heard argument on October 21, 2013.

Ms. Dawson, who served as a professor at Tunxis Community College, suffered from severe foot pain.   However, the Board found that her physician cleared her for full-time work on August 18, 2011 and that, in spite of being cleared, Ms. Dawson did not teach during the fall semester of 2011 and collected unemployment benefits.

II

DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review

“A trial court's review of the findings of the board is circumscribed.   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 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).  “If, however, the issue is one of law, the court has the broader responsibility of determining whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed from such facts.   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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Manukyan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 139 Conn.App. 26, 34 (2012).

“[A] [plaintiff's] failure to file a timely motion for correction of the board's findings in accordance with [Practice Book] § 22–4 prevents further review of those facts found by the board.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Manukyan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 139 Conn.App. 34.   Since Ms. Dawson did not file a motion to correct with the board within two weeks of the filing of the record with the court, as required by Practice Book § 22–4, the court cannot make a further review of those facts.  “In the absence of a motion to correct the finding of the board, the court is bound by the board's finding.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Warner v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 135 Conn.App. 84, 89, 41 A.3d 348 (2012).   The Board's findings are binding on this court.

B. Analysis

General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(A) provides that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he or she voluntarily left suitable employment without good cause attributable to his or her employer.   Good cause under these circumstances can include working conditions that threaten the individual's health, Reg. Conn. Agencies, D.O.L., § 31–236–22(a)(1)(C), which the individual must establish by competent evidence. § 31–236–22(a)(2).   In this case, the evidence presented did not demonstrate good cause but, rather, provided proof that Ms. Dawson was ineligible for benefits during the period at issue.

The Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of its discretion and Ms. Dawson did not file a motion for correction of the Board's findings.   As a result, the court is bound by the facts as found by the Board.   Ms. Dawson was ineligible to receive benefits, she is liable to pay back the overpayment of benefits in the amount of $10,240.00, and she is subject to an administrative penalty of a forfeiture of five weeks of future benefits based on her failure to report her income when she collected benefits.

III

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the court affirms the decision of the Board and appeal is dismissed.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., J.