X hits on this document

18 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

3 / 7

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

the

denial

of

benefits.

The

ALJ

concluded

that

Whiteside

voluntarily

left

her

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.

Analysis

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

Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 19:03:47 UTC 2016
Pages7
Paragraphs160
Words1446

Comments