ILNews

Judges order hearing on unemployment benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man, whose request for a continuance in a hearing regarding his unemployment benefits was denied by an administrative law judge, is entitled to a hearing on the matter, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

An administrative law judge determined that J.W.B. hadn’t shown good cause to grant his request for a continuance of a hearing regarding his receiving of unemployment benefits. His former company challenged the grant of benefits and the ALJ set the matter for a telephonic hearing on Nov. 10, 2010. On Nov. 3, J.W.B.’s counsel filed a motion for continuance because J.W.B.’s mother had just died and he would need to be out of state for six weeks and would not be available for the hearing. The ALJ denied the motion, finding he didn’t demonstrate good cause for the continuance.

On the day the hearing was set, J.W.B.’s attorney filed another motion for a continuance because J.W.B. was out of town and because she had another hearing with a different ALJ at the same time as J.W.B.’s hearing. The judge tried calling the attorney and got a busy signal. The ALJ issued her opinion that J.W.B. failed to participate and reversed the determination that J.W.B. was eligible for unemployment benefits. The Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

In J.W.B. v. Review Board, No. 93A02-1101-EX-5, the Court of Appeals noted that except for the ALJ noting that J.W.B. didn’t participate in the hearing and that he didn’t sustain his burden of proof that he had voluntarily left his employment for good cause, her decision is silent about the conclusion that the grounds stated in support of the motions for continuance didn’t constitute sufficient cause for granting them. The review board’s wholesale adoption of the ALJ’s findings and conclusions is also silent about its conclusion that the denial of the motions for continuance should be affirmed, or whether that issue was even considered by it, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

The ALJ stated she denied J.W.B.’s motions because he hadn’t shown good cause. “Good cause” hasn’t been defined for purposes of a motion to continue an unemployment-benefits appeal hearing, wrote the judge, but it has been defined in other contexts relating to unemployment benefits.

“We believe the following passage ... is worth reproducing here: ‘While we agree no such definition appears in Indiana statutes, regulations, or the Review Board’s materials submitted in this case, the absence of definition would be a substantive issue as to lack of clarity in the law, not a procedural deficiency. While the lack of legal definition could, in some cases, impede this court’s review of a Review Board decision to the extent we must have some legal standard to apply to the facts found by the Review Board, it does not do so here, in part because we are not faced with a pure question of law,’" wrote Judge Kirsch, citing S.S. v. Review Bd. Of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Disagreeing with the ALJ’s and review board’s conclusion that good cause was not shown, the judges ordered the review board to grant J.W.B. a hearing upon due notice.

Either of the reasons he gave for a continuance on their face constituted good cause, and he was prejudiced by the denial of his motions, the court concluded.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT