Monica Ventura v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a statutory appeal concerning the denial of unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits.   The employer did not respond to the plaintiff's application and it was granted by the administrator based on lack of good cause for termination.   Upon the employer's appeal, a hearing was conducted de novo by a referee, who issued findings of fact and reversed the decision of the administrator.   Upon the plaintiff's further appeal, the board of review adopted the referee's findings of fact and affirmed his decision.   The plaintiff appealed the decision of the board of review to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249b.

The plaintiff did not file with the board a motion for correction of the findings as required by Practice Book § 22–4.   The plaintiff has filed no position statement in support of her appeal.   The defendant administrator has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the appeal.   The court has conducted a review of the complete record.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Unemployment compensation is a legislative initiative and determinations of eligibility for benefits are made pursuant to the statutes and regulations governing the program.”  Resso v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 147 Conn.App. 661, 665 (2014).

General Statutes § 31–249b provides claimants with the right to appeal a decision of the board denying unemployment compensation benefits to the Superior Court.  “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 ․ The court must not retry the facts nor hear evidence ․ 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.”  (Citations omitted;  footnote omitted.)  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 209 Conn. 381, 385–86, 551 A.2d 724 (1988).

“A plaintiff's failure to file a timely motion to correct the board's findings in accordance with Practice Book § 22–4 prevents further review of those facts found by the board ․ In 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.”  (Citation omitted;  internal brackets omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Resso v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 147 Conn.App. 665.

Because the plaintiff has not filed a motion to correct the board's findings, this court reviews the board's decision only to determine if the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.  Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495–96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).

ANALYSIS

These are the essential findings of the referee:  The plaintiff last worked on April 8, 2013.   She sent a physician's letter to her employer on April 9, 2013, which medically excused her from work through April 16, 2013.   The plaintiff was cleared to return to work on April 16, 2013.   However, the plaintiff never returned to work.   Rather, she left the country for a month, claiming she was seeking further medical treatment.   The plaintiff did not inform her employer that she was doing so and the last communication she had with the employer was April 9, 2013.   The referee found that the plaintiff had no plausible explanation as to why she did not inform her employer that she was leaving the country to seek further medical treatment.   The referee found that the plaintiff had voluntarily separated from her employment, Record, p. 25, reversed the administrator and denied benefits.   Upon review, the board adopted the referee's findings and affirmed his decision.   Record, p. 37.

The plaintiff did not file a motion to correct the findings.   Because there was no motion to correct the findings of the Board, this court is not entitled to entertain a challenge to those findings.  Guevara v. Administrator, supra.

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings, the court is limited to a review of the record to determine if the board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.   The plaintiff has not provided any position statement for the court's consideration.   There is nothing in the record to indicate that the decision of the board was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Id. Neither has the plaintiff asserted this contention.   There is ample evidence to support the finding of facts.   The board's decision is logically based upon the findings of fact.   The court has no basis upon which to grant the plaintiff's appeal.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

Robert E. Young, J.

Young, Robert E., J.