Dennis B. Current v. Dept of Labor
162 Idaho 894
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Dennis B. Current, a seasonal Wada Farms employee, applied for Idaho unemployment benefits after intermittent work; IDOL compared his reported wages to Wada Farms’ payroll and found discrepancies for the weeks ending March 5 and March 12, 2016.
- Current reported lower wages ($330 vs. $397.51 and $231 vs. $313.59); IDOL sent a letter asking for explanation but Current contends he never received it.
- At administrative hearing Current testified he estimated hours because Wada Farms moved to an electronic Kronos system and he lacked timely access to paystubs; he admitted knowing he should correct estimated earnings once he had accurate information.
- IDOL’s Appeals Examiner found Current willfully misstated material facts, disqualified him for 52 weeks, required repayment, and imposed penalties; the Examiner denied reopening the hearing for additional evidence.
- The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed, concluding Current knowingly reported estimates and failed to verify or correct them, which satisfied the statutory standard for willful misreporting.
- Current appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court challenging willfulness and seeking reversal; the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, denied IDOL’s request for attorney fees but awarded costs to IDOL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Brief sufficiency under Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a) | Current: brief adequately presents issues and reasons | IDOL: Current’s brief is conclusory and lacks authority | Court: Current’s brief met I.A.R. 35(a) requirements |
| 2. Whether substantial competent evidence supports a finding of willful misreporting | Current: misreporting was an honest mistake; lacked intent to deceive | IDOL: Current knew obligation to correct estimated earnings and failed to do so | Court: Evidence supports willfulness—willful means intentional act, not proof of evil intent |
| 3. Whether the Appeals Examiner should have reopened the hearing | Current: sought to present additional evidence (lack of intent) | IDOL: hearing was fair and full; no basis to reopen | Court: denial proper; additional evidence would not change uncontested matters |
| 4. Whether IDOL is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-117(1) | IDOL: Current’s appeal lacked reasonable basis | Current: good-faith basis that he did not willfully lie | Court: deny fees—Current had a good-faith argument; costs awarded to IDOL |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Idaho Dep’t of Labor, 157 Idaho 744 (2014) (defines willfulness in unemployment reporting context and upholds disqualification for failure to correct estimated earnings)
- Bringman v. New Albertsons, Inc., 157 Idaho 71 (2014) (willfulness found where claimant was properly informed and claimed misunderstanding lacked credibility)
- McNulty v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 152 Idaho 582 (2012) (claimant bears burden of proving statutory eligibility for benefits)
- Uhl v. Ballard Med. Products, Inc., 138 Idaho 653 (2003) (standard of review for Industrial Commission factual findings)
- Neihart v. Universal Joint Auto Parts, Inc., 141 Idaho 801 (2005) (view facts in light most favorable to the prevailing party before the Commission)