Opinion
No. CV 08 4010409 S
February 19, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-222 et seq., moves to dismiss the appeal filed by Lorraine Scrivano from the adverse decision rendered by the Employment Security Board of Review pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249.
Under § 31-249b and Practice Book § 22-9, the function of the superior court in unemployment compensation appeals is limited to scrutinizing the decision of the Board of Review to assess whether the board's factual findings and conclusions are supported by the evidence before the board. The court "cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses." Practice Book § 22-9. As a result, the court does not retry the case and "is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact." Latina v. Administrator, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1999).
On May 2, 2008, the appellant voluntarily quit her job at Cramer Alissi and Fontaine, P.C., in order to care for her mother-in-law who suffers from dementia. The administrator found that the appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits effective May 4, 2008. The Employment Security Appeals Division held a de novo hearing and also denied benefits to the appellant on July 3, 2008. The Board of Review affirmed this denial on November 6, 2008.
The basis for the appellant's ineligibility was a finding that she failed to make reasonable efforts to find employment during the period from May 4 to June 28, 2008. The board determined that the appellant had applied for work at only four places during this time. This determination is amply supported by the record before the board.
General Statutes § 31-235(a)(2) predicates eligibility to receive benefits on the applicant having made "reasonable efforts to obtain work." Whether a particular number of job applications constitutes a `reasonable effort' is a question of fact. Carr v. Administrator, 26 Conn.Sup. 336, 337 (1966); Velez v. Administrator, 24 Conn.Sup. 507, 508 (1963). In both of these cases, two job applications per week were found by the administrator to be insufficient to satisfy this standard. The trial court upheld these rulings on the basis that the court was bound to accept subordinate factual findings and reasonable conclusions. Carr v. Administrator, supra; Velez v. Administrator, supra.
It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that filing only four job applications in a span of nearly two months is a reasonable effort to seek employment. The motion to dismiss is, therefore granted.