Ham v. Daniels

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Ham v. Daniels

606 S.W.2d 604, 270 Ark. 961, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1424

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 29, 1980

DocketE 80-48

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 606 S.W.2d 604 (Ham v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ham v. Daniels, 606 S.W.2d 604, 270 Ark. 961, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1424 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

David Newbern, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this case because the appellant called to our attention correspondence in the record by which persons who had been described by his employer at the hearing before the appeals tribunal as being dissatisfied with services rendered to them by the appellant had denied being dissatisfied. Of course, the letters became part of the record after the hearing and before the board of review dealt with the matter. Because of the abbreviated nature of the board of review opinion, we are unable to tell the extent to which the letters were considered by the board of review.

A careful reexamination of the entire record, however, convinces us that even had the board of review given the letters in question the fullest consideration to which they were entitled, there was substantial evidence, consisting of the testimony of the appellant’s employer to sustain the board’s affirmance.

The employer testified the appellant had been at least indifferent to his duties and had stated it really did not matter that he mixed up typewriter deliveries. That testimony shows actions by the employee which were not in his employer’s best interest. It was supportive of the finding the employee was disqualified from benefits, having been discharged for misconduct. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(b)(1) (Repl. 1976). Having found substantial evidence in support of the board’s decision, we must affirm. Terry Dairy Products, Inc. v. Cash, 224 Ark. 576, 275 S.W. 2d 12 (1944); Deatherage v. Charles L. Daniels, et al., 267 Ark. 683 590 S.W. 2d 62 (Ark. App. 1979).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Wright and Judge Hays and Howard dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

David Newbern, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this case because the appellant called to our attention correspondence in the record by which persons who had been described by his employer at the hearing before the appeals tribunal as being dissatisfied with services rendered to them by the appellant had denied being dissatisfied. Of course, the letters became part of the record after the hearing and before the board of review dealt with the matter. Because of the abbreviated nature of the board of review opinion, we are unable to tell the extent to which the letters were considered by the board of review.

A careful reexamination of the entire record, however, convinces us that even had the board of review given the letters in question the fullest consideration to which they were entitled, there was substantial evidence, consisting of the testimony of the appellant’s employer to sustain the board’s affirmance.

The employer testified the appellant had been at least indifferent to his duties and had stated it really did not matter that he mixed up typewriter deliveries. That testimony shows actions by the employee which were not in his employer’s best interest. It was supportive of the finding the employee was disqualified from benefits, having been discharged for misconduct. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(b)(1) (Repl. 1976). Having found substantial evidence in support of the board’s decision, we must affirm. Terry Dairy Products, Inc. v. Cash, 224 Ark. 576, 275 S.W. 2d 12 (1944); Deatherage v. Charles L. Daniels, et al., 267 Ark. 683 590 S.W. 2d 62 (Ark. App. 1979).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Wright and Judge Hays and Howard dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 S.W.2d 604, 270 Ark. 961, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-daniels-arkctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack