This court must examine "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and Friends of Lincoln Lake v Board of reasonably find the facts as it did." Environmental Protection, 2001 ME. Anderson v Maine Public Employees Retirement System, 2009 ME. The party seeking to vacate a state agency decision has the burden of 3 persuasion on appeal. The court is not permitted to overturn an agency's decision "unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes exceeds the agency's authority is procedurally unlawful is arbitrary or capricious constitutes an abuse of discretion is affected by bias or error of law or is unsupported by the evidence in the record." Kroger v Departmental of Environmental Protection, 2005 ME. Prat., 2014 J'v1E 116, ,r Passadumkeag 12, 102 A.3d 1181 (quoting Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Law Court has recently reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Mountain Friends v. The Petitioner could not be reached to determine his position regarding oral argument. Briefing was completed on September 18, 2017. The Petitioner filed a timely appeal to this court on May 26, 2017. In a Decision dated April 28, 2017, the Unemployment Insurance Commission dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it because the Petitioner had failed to appear at the telephone hearing held on Maat 2:00 p.m., and he had not shown "good cause" for his failure to appear. In his statement of reasons for the appeal, he wrote: I talked to someone from the State that called from a career center that day but never the deputy for the appeals hearing. The Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Commission. 2 awarded benefits in the amount of $3,432.00 that constituted an overpayment, "which must be repaid." (R. The Hearing Officer found that the Petitioner had been erroneously disputed this and claimed that she had called the Deputy and left a voice message for him but he did not return her call. §1193(3) and was, therefore, disqualified from benefits. In a decision dated and mailed on March 10, 2017, the Hearing Officer found that the Petitioner had refused to accept an offer of suitable work within the meaning of 26 M.R.S. The Petitioner did not call in to the hearing and the evidence was closed and the hearing concluded at 2:21 p. ![]() Thereafter, the hearing continued with the employer's representative providing testimony. The Petitioner did not answer, but the following message was received by the Hearing Officer: "I'm sorry, but the person you called has a voicemail that has not been set up yet. m.), the Hearing Officer called both the employer and the Petitioner. The notice also expressly stated that the "unavailability of a party at the time the Hearing Officer places a call to the party's telephone number," would be treated as "a failure to appear and may result in dismissal of the appeal." (Id.) Finally, the notice, in bold letters, stated: "Failure to appear at the hearing may result in dismissal of the appeal, denial of benefits, increased unemployment insurance taxes and loss of any right of further legal review." (Id.) On the day and at the time scheduled for the hearing, (Maat 2:00 p. at least, ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO the time of your hearing." (Id.) (emphasis in original). ![]() The notice informed the parties that they would be called "within 15 minutes of the scheduled hearing time," and that if the correct telephone number was not listed, "please inform us of your correct number by calling. The notice of hearing was provided to both the Petitioner and the employer and listed the telephone contact numbers for each of them. A telephone hearing was scheduled for March 6, 201 7 at 2:00 p.m. At the subsequent hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer, the employer filed a timely appeal. 1 The employer (Goodall Landscaping, Inc.) 1 In the Deputy's Decision, it is asserted that the employer did not participate in the Telephone Fact Finding Interview. THE DECISIONS BELOW In a Deputy's decision dated February 8, 2017, the Petitioner was awarded benefits from December 11, 2016. §§ 1101-1108 (Administrative Procedure Act), and M.R.Civ.P. This appeal has been brought in accordance with 26 M.R.S. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondent INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on an appeal by Emmanuel Quaqua (Claimant) from the decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission) which dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the Petitioner's appeal of an administrative Hearing Officer's ruling denying him unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that he refused to accept an offer of suitable employment. AP-2017-27 EMMANUEL QUAQUA, Petitioner DECISION AND ORDER V.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |