MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL ISSUES
18-AT-09646-BR – In the employer’s appeal to the Board of Review, the Vice President, who did not participate in the hearing, offered new reasons for the employer’s untimely protest and documentation of medical appointments. None of this information was provided at the Appeal Tribunal hearing, and thus, cannot be considered by the Board.
18-AT-09514-BR - In the claimant’s appeal to the Board of Review, he stated he wanted to subpoena two witnesses who worked for his last employer to testify. The claimant could have requested subpoenas for those individuals prior to the Appeal Tribunal hearing. Because their testimony was not presented for the record at the Appeal Tribunal hearing, the Board of Review cannot consider it.
18-AT-08872-BR – The claimant’s attorney based her appeal to the Board of Review on the fact that the claimant subpoenaed documents for the hearing which the employer did not provide. However, the Hearing Officer gave the attorney an opportunity to present an offer of proof regarding what would have been shown by the documents. Therefore, the absence of the documents is not found to have been detrimental to the case.
18-AT-07231-BR – In the employer’s appeal to the Board of Review, the Unemployment Coordinator referred to a document in the appeal packet as proof of his argument that it timely filed its initial appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. However, the Unemployment Coordinator did not appear for the Appeal Tribunal hearing and neither of the witnesses who did offered the document into the hearing record. The Board of Review can only consider exhibits and sworn testimony from the hearing; thus, the document the Unemployment Coordinator referred to cannot be considered.
18-AT-04740-BR – The attorney’s application for attorney fees is approved as the request does not exceed 20% of the claimant’s maximum benefit amount. The claimant is solely responsible for the payment of all attorney fees assessed by the attorney and approved by the Board of Review.
18-AT-04566-BR – When a claimant files for two consecutive claim years, without intervening employment, a disqualification from the previous claim year carries over to the newly established claim year.
18-AT-02996-BR - The claimant objected to a signed statement from a potential witness being entered into the record, when the employer’s Investigative Report was entered. The claimant’s witness statement was hard to read, not notarized, and likely would not be admissible when the witness was not at the hearing to be sworn or cross-examined. The employer’s Investigative Report was a record kept in the regular course of business, and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule.
18-AT-02210-BR- The issue discussed at the Appeal Tribunal hearing and later appealed to the Board of Review concerned the claimant’s availability to seek and accept work while caring for his seriously ill mother. The claimant argued in his appeal to the Board of Review that he should be qualified for benefits under Section 2-210, which is an issue not before the Board of Review. Because a hearing on his separation had not been held, the Board of Review cannot address that matter.
17-AT-09181-BR – The claimant disagreed with B&H Construction being considered his last employer because he had worked for Lamunyon Drilling for 12 days after he quit B&H. Section 2-503 requires an individual must work for an employer at least 15 working days in order for that employer to be considered the “last” employer. Thus, B&H Construction is the claimant’s last employer.
17-AT-08749-BR – In a hearing on May 30, 2017, the employer’s representative voluntarily requested to withdraw from the hearing due to its witness being unavailable. The Hearing Officer granted the employer’s withdrawal request and dismissed the appeal with prejudice on May 31, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the employer submitted a reopen request due to its witness writing down the date of the hearing incorrectly. The Appeal Tribunal responded on June 16, 2017, advising the employer that its request was denied due to the appeal having been dismissed with prejudice. When the case was dismissed with prejudice as a result of the employer’s withdrawal request, the employer forfeited its right to reopen the case. The Board of Review notes that had the case been dismissed without prejudice, the employer’s reason for its witness’ absence would not be considered good cause to reopen the case.
17-AT-02912-BR- Claimant’s attorney asserted that the Claimant did not receive due process due to the attorney not being notified of the hearing. The Claimant had received appeal documents herself, had not notified the Appeal Tribunal of her desire to have her attorney notified, and advised the Hearing Officer at hearing that she did not expect her attorney to participate. Thus, the Claimant did receive due process.
17-AT-01879-BR - The Employer withdrew its appeal on the record after having been denied a continuance which it requested because it desired an attorney for representation upon learning the Claimant had one. The Employer’s withdrawal cannot be rescinded because the Employer later changed its mind about the proceeding.
16-AT-00291-BR - Remanded to allow the claimant to question an available witness whose handwritten comment is on an employer exhibit.