Current v. HADDONS FENCING, INC., 152 Idaho 10

Current was Haddons Fencing's shop foreman from June 10, 2008 to September 12, 2009.
On September 12, 2009, Current sought either a raise or guaranteed hours, which Haddons' owner Jan refused.
Current asked to be laid off; Jan refused and told him to quit; he turned in his keys and corporate credit card.
Around the same time, Current arranged to harvest for Wada Farms, with a start date of September 15, 2009.
On September 14, 2009, Current filed an unemployment claim selecting 'lack of work/laid off'; Haddons reported that he quit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial evidence of a willful false statement?	Current argues the misstatement was a mistaken belief, not willful.	Current's misstatement was willful and material under I.C. 72-1366(12).	Yes; substantial and competent evidence supports willful false statement.
Did the failure to call a witness render the hearing unfair?	Robin's testimony was relevant and should have been heard.	Robin's testimony was not arranged or relevant to the issues; examiner did not abuse discretion.	No; examiner did not abuse discretion; Robin's testimony was not necessary.

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 99 Idaho 754 (Idaho 1979) (materiality defined; standard for determining material facts)
Woods v. Ewins, 138 Idaho 343 (Idaho 2003) (deference to commission on credibility and factual determinations)
Buckham v. Idaho Elk's Rehabilitation Hosp., 141 Idaho 338 (Idaho 2005) (substantial evidence standard for commission findings)
Ginther v. Boise Cascade Corp., 150 Idaho 143 (Idaho 2010) (standard of review; deference to commission unless clearly erroneous)