Morin v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 3, 2009
• Docket: CUMap-09-027
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-09~027 I ('j, ')/ KIMBERLY A. MORIN

Peti tioner,

v.

MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, ORDER Respondent

The Unemployment Insurance Commission decided that Kimberly Morin

was dismissed from her employment for misconduct as defined by 26 M,R.S.A.

§ 1043(23), and that she did not have good cause for missing her administrative

hearing on February 2, 2009. Morin brings this appeal pursuant to Rule SOc.

BACKGROUND Appellant Kimberly Morin was employed by IDBI, Inc. d/b I a Aucocisco

School and Learning Center, as an administrative assistant, receptionist, and

bookkeeper. Morin's employment began in March 1999, and ended on November

14, 2008. She applied for and received unemployment benefits on the ground that

she had been dismissed without cause. IDBI, Inc. appealed Morin's award and a

hearing was set for February 2, 2009. Notice of the time, location, and subject

matter of the hearing was mailed to Morin on January 12, 2009. The notice of

hearing warned that "[f]ailure to appear may result in denial of benefits,

1 increased unemployment insurance taxes and loss of any right of further legal . reVIew. "

Morin did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The administrative

hearing officer took the testimony of Barbara and Harvey Melnick, co-owners

and officers of IDBI, Inc., who represented the employer. Based on their

testimony the hearing officer found that there had been "ongoing lapses on

[Morin's] part with regard to attendance ... [and an] overall recurring neglect to

perform with due diligence reasonable and proper duties assigned to her." The

hearing officer also found that the employer had "established by a

preponderance of the evidence the elements of the presumptions of misconduct

set out in § 1043(23)(A)(l) and/ or (9)." Since Morin did not appear to present

opposing testimony, the hearing officer concluded that Morin had committed

misconduct in her work and a "culpable breach" of her employment duties. The

officer found that Morin had been discharged for misconduct as defined by 26

M.R.S.A. § 1043(23) and was thus ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.

The $3,540.00 in benefits that she had already received was deemed an

overpayment.

On March 3, 2009 Morin appealed the decision to the Unemployment

Insurance Commission, requesting a new hearing on the grounds that illness had

prevented her from attending the scheduled hearing. The Commission affirmed

and adopted the decision, noting that Morin had not identified the nature of her

illness and that her case might receive further consideration if she supplied more

information. On April 13, 2009 Morin sought reconsideration, this time including

physician's letters. The letters indicated that around the time of the initial

2 hearing Morin was being treated for depression, which inhibited her ability "to

attend to her own affairs."

On May 21, 2009 the Commission re-affirmed the decision and determined

that no further hearings were warranted, but did not explain its reasoning. Morin

again sought reconsideration, arguing that she had demonstrated good cause

excusing her failure to appear at the initial hearing pursuant to Rules Governing

Adjudicatory Proceedings, Ch. 5, § l(B)(1) (2002). The Commission again re­

affirmed the decision. On July 7, 2009 Morin filed this appeal pursuant to M.R.

Civ. P. SOc.

DISCUSSION

When an agency's decision is appealed pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. SOC, this

Court directl y examines the record before the agency and reviews its decision for

errors of law, "giving great deference to the [agency's] interpretation of its own

regulations." Farley v. Maille Unelllploylllent Ins. C01l1l11'1l, 624 A.2d 1233, 1234 (Me.

1993). "The [Unemployment Insurance] Commission's rules provide for a default

when a party fails to attend a benefits hearing unless the party can show good

cause." Id. (citing Rules Governing Adjudicatory Proceedings, Ch. 5, § l(B)(1)

(1991)). On a written request for determination of good cause, the Commission

may hold a good cause hearing. Rules Governing Adjudicatory Proceedings,

Ch. 5, § l(B)(1)(b) (2002). "If the Commission determines that good cause exists, it

will conduct a hearing on the underlying substantive issues." Id. If good cause

does not exist, the Commission will not re-examine the substanti ve issues. Id. at

§ (1)(B)(l)(c).

3 "Good cause" includes instances where "the unemployed individual is ill

... or other causers] of a necessitous and compelling nature." Rules Governing

Adjudicatory Proceedings, Ch. 1, § l(T) (2002). Morin argues that she was unable

to attend her benefits hearing due to being ill with depression, constituting good

cause under the rule. Morin supports her position with hvo brief letters from her

doctors, each indicating that Morin was suffering from depression when the

hearing was held in February 2009. The Commission examined Morin's evidence

twice, but still chose to affirm and adopt the administrative hearing officer's

decision. In its own decisions, the Commission wrote only that it "reviewed the

record in this case and ... determined that further hearing is not warranted." By

implication the Commission must have determined that Morin failed to establish

good cause for her absence at the hearing, but the Commission gives no

indication as to why.

"Every agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory

proceeding shall ... include findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and

any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision." 5 M.R.5.A.

§ 9061 (2009). The record on this appeal does not indicate the basis on which the

Comm.ission determined that Morin did not have good cause for missing her

hearing. Morin has produced evidence indicating that she was ill at the time of

the hearing, and illness is listed as a good cause in the Commission's rules. The

Commission's decision does not disclose an adequate basis for this Court to

determine why Morin's prima facie showing of good cause was insufficient.

The Commission argues that there is substantial evidence on the record

showing that Morin was in fact dismissed for misconduct, and that the

Commission is not obligated to provide her wi th a good-cause hearing. Both

4 arguments miss the mark. The issue on this appeal is not whether the hearing

officer's determination was correct, or whether the Commission improperly

denied Morin a good-cause hearing. The issue here is whether Morin showed

good cause for missing the hearing on February 2, 2009. While the Commission

does not have to provide Morin with a good-cause hearing, it is obligated to

provide some basis for its determination that she did not show good cause. 5

M.R.S.A. § 9061 (2009).

The entry is:

The Commission's decision is vacated, and on remand the Court requests

that the Commission make additional findings of fact explaining why Morin has

or has not shown good cause justifying a new hearing 01

of her case.

R al A. Cole Justice, Superior Court

5 Date Filed 07_-_0_7_-_0_9 _ CUMBERLAND Docket No. AP-09-27 County

Action 80C APPEAL

KIMBERLY A. MORIN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 232 BANCROFT STREET PORTLAND, ME 04102

Ys.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney ELIZABETH WYMAN AAG PRO SE ELIZABETH STOUDER ESQ(employer: IBDI Inc. db Aucocisco School

Date of T;'rtry