Dilia S. Iraheta v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (102.00)

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 Dilia S. Iraheta.

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 for benefits.

As the Appeals Referee found:

In the present case, the claimant admits that she was not available for full-time work from May 12, 2013, to August 3, 2013, but contends that she was able to work part-time during that period of time.   The claimant has provided a physician's certification of the claimant's health.   The certification, which is dated May 30, 2013, indicates that the claimant was able to work on a part-time basis.   However, it does not specify when she became able to work part-time.   Lacking such evidence, the referee must conclude that the claimant was not able to work prior to May 30, 2013.   As May 30, 2013, was a Thursday, the referee must find that the claimant was not able to work during the major portion of the week ending June 1, 2013.   Consequently, the referee must find that the claimant was not able to work from May 12, 2013, to June 1, 2013.   As a result, she is ineligible for benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31–235(a)(2) for that period of time.

Appeals Referee Decision (August 7, 2013) at 4 (Rec at 34).   Affirmed by Board of Review (October 22, 2013).

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.