Castro v. Security Assurance Management, Inc.
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 287
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Castro challenged an ALJ denial of unemployment benefits after being found not laid off for lack of work.
- ALJ credited Security's witnesses, finding Castro declined multiple offered assignments, ending employment due to his own refusals.
- Castro sought a subpoena for Charles Arnewt; ALJ denied for lack of relevance under Scheduling Order and OAH Rule 2822.2.
- Castro submitted a pro se Appendix with telephone records and earnings statement not admitted into the administrative record.
- This court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, holding the requested subpoena error harmless and the Appendix not properly before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subpoena denial harmless error? | Castro argues ALJ abused discretion denying subpoena for Arnewt. | Security contends subpoena was properly denied for lack of relevance. | Harmless error; substantial evidence supports denial of reversal. |
| Appendix evidence proper use on review? | Appendix documents should be considered to rebut Security's testimony. | Appendix not part of administrative record, thus improper for review. | Appendix not properly before court; not considered. |
| Standard of review for OAH findings? | Castro contends factual disputes merit reversal. | OAH findings must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. | OAH findings sustained; substantial evidence supports not laid off. |
| Whether Castro was laid off for lack of work? | Evidence shows termination or lack of work. | Security proved Castro declined offers, not laid off. | Castro not laid off; employment ended due to his refusals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement, Inc., 905 A.2d 177 (D.C. 2006) (substantial-evidence standard governs review of OAH findings)
- Combs v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 983 A.2d 1004 (D.C. 2009) (upholds substantial-evidence review framework)
- Cruz v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 633 A.2d 66 (D.C. 1993) (good-cause standard for voluntary leaving eligibility)
- Bowman-Cook v. Washington Area Transit Auth., 16 A.3d 130 (D.C. 2011) (remedial, liberal construction of unemployment statute)
- Rhea v. Designmark Serv., Inc., 942 A.2d 651 (D.C. 2008) (unrepresented claimants treated with consideration; record rules)
- Prime v. District of Columbia Dep't of Public Works, 955 A.2d 178 (D.C. 2008) (evidence not presented to OAH generally not considered on review)