Following her resignation, Whiteside filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
The Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“Workforce Development”) first
denied Whiteside’s request for benefits on October 27, 2006. On November 3, 2006,
Whiteside filed a notice of appeal with Workforce Development regarding the denial.
Following a hearing on January 2, 2007, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) affirmed
employment without good cause in connection to her work. On January 18, 2007,
Whiteside appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Review Board. In issuing its decision, the
Review Board affirmed the ALJ and adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law. This appeal followed.
Whiteside contends the Review Board’s finding are contrary to law. Specifically,
she argues the Board erred by failing to apply Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1(c)(2).
Whiteside contends this statutory subsection should grant her unemployment benefits by
taking into account her son’s disability.
When a decision of the Review Board is challenged as contrary to law, as here, we
utilize a two-part inquiry into the sufficiency of the facts sustaining the decision and the
sufficiency of the evidence sustaining the facts. McHugh v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of
Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436, 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Ind. Code § 22-4-17-
12(f)). In doing so, we consider determinations of basic underlying facts, conclusions or
inferences from those facts, and conclusions of law. Id. The Review Board’s findings of
fact are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review. Id. “Any decision of the 3