Hoskins v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
2014 COA 47
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Claimant David C. Hoskins, a licensed attorney since 1981, sought to restart his own law practice after layoff in November 2012.
- Claimant focused on building his own firm rather than seeking alternative employment in bankruptcy practice.
- Deputy found claimant ineligible for benefits for weeks ending Dec. 1, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2012–July 13, 2013 for failing to supply required job-contact listings.
- Hearing officer concluded claimant’s efforts were primarily for business development of his own firm, not for obtaining employment.
- Panel affirmed, agreeing claimant did not make a reasonable and diligent effort to actively seek suitable work during the periods at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether self-employment efforts count as seeking work. | Hoskins argues self-employment efforts should be included in seeking work. | Agency counters that work and employment are synonymous and exclude self-employment. | No; self-employment efforts are excluded; work equals employment for this context. |
| Whether claimant’s job-search conduct met the regulatory standard of a systematic, sustained effort. | Hoskins claims his actions constituted active job-search activity. | Agency found his contacts were mainly for business development, not seeking employment. | No; the record shows insufficient contacts aimed at obtaining employment, failing the requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayly Mfg. Co. v. Dep't of Employment, 155 Colo. 433, 395 P.2d 216 (Colo. 1964) (availability and actively seeking work require case-by-case assessment; burden on claimant)
- Kraus v. Artcraft Sign Co., 710 P.2d 480 (Colo.1985) (read nonexistent provisions into statutes not allowed)
- Duenas-Rodriguez v. Indus. Comm'n, 199 Colo. 95, 606 P.2d 437 (Colo.1980) (statutory availability and actively seeking work analyzed in context)
- Samaritan Inst. v. Prince-Walker, 883 P.2d 3 (Colo.1994) (statutory interpretation seeks the General Assembly’s intent)
- Heinicke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 197 P.3d 220 (Colo.App.2008) (agency interpretation afforded deference when consistent with statute)
- McClaflin v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 126 P.3d 288 (Colo.App.2005) (claimant bears burden to prove eligibility for unemployment benefits)
- Tilley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo.App.1996) (credibility and factual determinations are for hearing officer; deference on review)