Opinion
No. CV03-0182152S
June 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT # 101
JURISDICTION
Appeals from the board of review to the superior court are exempt from the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act codified at General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. General Statutes § 4-186. Appeals of this nature are governed by General Statutes § 31-222 et seq., the Unemployment Compensation Act.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
"In any appeal, any finding of the referee or the board shall be subject to correction only to the extent provided by section 22-9 of the Connecticut Practice Book." General Statutes § 31-249b. The court "considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether the finding should be corrected, or whether there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached." Practice Book § 22-9. "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 of review. The court must not retry facts nor hear evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, 238 Conn. 273, 276, 679 A.2d 347 (1996). The findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact in the certified copy of the record filed by the board, therefore, bind the court. Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977). "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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, supra, 276.
General Statutes § 31-249b states:
At any time before the board's decision has become final, any party, including the administrator, may appeal to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford or for the judicial district wherein the appellant resides. Any or all parties similarly situated may join in one appeal. In such judicial proceeding the original and five copies of a petition, which shall state the grounds on which a review is sought, shall be filed in the office of the board. The chairman of the board shall, within the third business day thereafter, cause the original petition or petitions to be mailed to the clerk of the Superior Court and copy or copies thereof to the administrator and to each other party to the proceeding in which such appeal was taken; and said clerk shall docket such appeal as returned to the next return day after the receipt of such petition or petitions. In all cases, the board shall certify the record to the court. The record shall consist of the notice of appeal to the referee and the board, the notices of hearing before them, the referee's findings of fact and decision, the findings and decision of the board, all documents admitted into evidence before the referee and the board or both and all other evidentiary material accepted by them. Upon request of the court, the board shall (1) in cases in which its decision was rendered on the record of such hearing before the referee, prepare and verify to the court a transcript of such hearing before the referee; and (2) in cases in which its decision was rendered on the record of its own evidentiary hearing, provide and verify to the court a transcript of such hearing of the board. In any appeal, any finding of the referee or the board shall be subject to correction only to the extent provided by section 22-9 of the Connecticut Practice Book. Such appeals shall be claimed for the short calendar unless the court shall order the appeal placed on the trial list. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Superior Court to the Appellate Court in the same manner as is provided in section 51-197b. It shall not be necessary in any judicial proceeding under this section that exceptions to the rulings of the board shall have been made or entered and no bond shall be required for entering an appeal to the Superior Court. Unless the court shall otherwise order after motion and hearing, the final decision of the court shall be the decision as to all parties to the original proceeding. In any appeal in which one of the parties is not represented by counsel and in which the party taking the appeal does not claim the case for the short calendar or trial within a reasonable time after the return day, the court may of its own motion dismiss the appeal, or the party ready to proceed may move for nonsuit or default as appropriate. When an appeal is taken to the Superior Court, the clerk thereof shall by writing notify the board of any action of the court thereon and of the disposition of such appeal whether by judgment, remand, withdrawal or otherwise and shall, upon the decision on the appeal, furnish the board with a copy of such decision. The court may remand the case to the board for proceedings de novo, or for further proceedings on the record, or for such limited purposes as the court may prescribe. The court also may order the board to remand the case to a referee for any further proceedings deemed necessary by the court. The court may retain jurisdiction by ordering a return to the court of the proceedings conducted in accordance with the order of the court or the court may order final disposition. A party aggrieved by a final disposition made in compliance with an order of the Superior Court, by the filing of an appropriate motion, may request the court to review the disposition of the case.
Practice Book § 22-9 states, in relevant part: "(a) Such appeals are heard by the court upon the certified copy of the record filed by the board. The court does not 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 the finding should be corrected, or whether there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached. It cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses . . ." (b) Corrections by the court of the board's finding will only be made upon the refusal to find a material fact which was an admitted or undisputed fact, upon the finding of a fact in language of doubtful meaning so that its real significance may not clearly appear, or upon the finding of a material fact without evidence."
DISCUSSION
"Appeals to courts from administrative agencies exist only under statutory authority . . . A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is created . . . Such provisions are mandatory, and, if not complied with, the appeal is subject to dismissal . . . Dismissal is required in such a situation because, if the appellant lacks standing to appeal the case, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Office of Consumer Counsel v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 234 Conn. 624, 640, 662 A.2d 1251 (1995).
Section 31-249b provides, in relevant part, that any petition to the Superior Court for review of a decision of the board "shall state the grounds on which a review is sought . . ." This court is unaware of any appellate court case addressing this statutory provision. Superior Court cases, however, have held that a claimant who fails to assert "legal grounds on which [the] appeal should proceed . . . has failed to conform to the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal pursuant to § 31-249b and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal." Mims v. Administrator, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. CV 03 0071134 (December 17, 2003, Swienton, J.) ( 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 219); see also Tarala Electric v. Administrator, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 92 0122973 (December 9, 1992, Mottolese, J.) (dismissing the appeal because it was "totally devoid of any grounds on which the Board erred" and, thus, the court lacked jurisdiction); Hugie v. Administrator, 27 Conn. Sup. 407, 408-09, 240 A.2d 918 (1968) (dismissing claimant's appeal because the claimant failed to state grounds for review, which is mandatory and a matter of jurisdiction). It is submitted that this court should follow the reasoning of Mims, Tarala Electric and Hugie.
Similarly, Practice Book § 22-1(a) states: "The appeal shall be in the form of a petition which shall state the grounds on which a review is sought."
In the present appeal, the claimant failed to set forth any grounds upon which her petition is based. The claimant, as in Mims v. Administrator, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 03 0071134, did not even include a conclusory statement in her petition that the board erred in rendering its decision. Accordingly, the claimant's petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because she failed to follow the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal pursuant to § 31-249b.
The claimant's handwritten petition states: "I Sonya Young applied for unemployment benefits on June 29, 2003, I was found to be ineligible for benefits. I appealed the decision, and had a hearing on September 2, 2003; that decision found me to be ineligible also. I filed a timely appeal to the board of review, again I was found to be ineligible. I would like to keep the case open, and file for another appeal."
Even if the court had jurisdiction, the claimant's petition is still subject to dismissal. General Statutes § 31-236(a)(2)(A) states, in relevant part, that a claimant will be ineligible for benefits "[i]f, in the opinion of the administrator, the individual has left suitable work voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer . . ." "In determining whether an individual's reason for leaving suitable work is for good cause attributable to the employer, the Administrator must find that the reason relates to wages, hours or working conditions which comprise the employment that the individual voluntarily left." Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-236-19.
"A valid [agency) regulation has the force of a statute" and "constitutes state law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 267, 571 A.2d 696 (1990).
In the present appeal, the board held, in its October 23, 2003, decision, that the claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal reasons without good cause attributable to the employer. The board found that the claimant left suitable work because she decided to relocate after her landlord raised the rent, which she could no longer afford. The board states, "although the claimant's reasons for relocating were compelling, they are personal reasons that are disqualifying under the Connecticut Compensation Act." This court agrees with the board's decision, which is not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion. "A claimant is not entitled to unemployment compensation when [she] limits [her] availability for work because of personal reasons unrelated to the employment." Dubkowski v. Administrator, 150 Conn. 278, 280, 188 A.2d 658 (1963). As a result, the defendant's motion for judgment should be granted.
ALVORD, J.