OPINION
By statute, an employee who makes false statements in an application for unemployment benefits is disqualified from eligibility to receive those benefits. The issue presented in this case is whether an employee whо made false statements to establish her right to benefits is disqualified even if the false statements were ultimately immaterial to the determination of entitlement to benefits. We hold that because the statute is clear and unambiguous and the decision of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission is sup
. I. Facts and Procedure
Taffy Downey is a registered nurse who worked full-time at Kindred Nursing Center (“Kindred”). Kindred terminated Downey when she refused a work assignment to cover two halls instead of her usual one hall. A nurse had quit without providing notice leaving Kindred understaffed. This circumstance created a need for the available nurses to cover more patients than usual. Because she did not believe she could safely provide care to all the patients, Downey refused the work assignment. Downey’s reasoning for her refusal was that if she covered the extra hallway and provided less than adequate care for the patients, her .nursing license could have been put in jeopardy. KRS
Upon termination, Downey immediately applied for unemployment -benefits from the Kentucky Unemрloyment Insurance Commission. Downey ■ stated her reason for separation as being “laid off’ due to “lack of work.” These statements provided Downey with benefits immediately. Kindred • subsequently refuted Downey’s statement in its explanаtion of separation and upon receiving Kindred’s statements, the Commission disqualified Downey from receiving benefits. Downey’s appeal resulted in a Referee decision holding she was not entitled to benefits for two separate reasons.
First, the Referee found Downey had been terminated for misconduct because Kindred’s- request to work multiple halls, which Downey refused, was a reasonable instruction. Downey’s .refusal was in direct violatiоn of KRS 34Í.370(6).
The Commission affirmed the Referee’s decision in part and reversed in part. First, the Commission found Kindred’s inr struction to cover two hallways to be unreasonable in light of the undue hardship it would cause Downey. If Downey had accepted the assignment of covering both hallways and failed to provide all of the patients with adequate care, she ran the
'Second, the Commission affirmed the Referee with respect to Downey’s false statemеnt and the resulting disqualification to receive benefits. The Commission held that providing a knowingly false Statement disqualifies Downey from receiving benefit's. KRS 341.370(2). The Commission
II. Standard of Review
The standard of review of an unemployment benefit decision is.whether the Commission’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidenсe and whether the agency correctly applied the law to the facts. Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n,
III. . Analysis.
• The facts in this case are not disputed. The issue presented" is solely whether KRS 341.370(2) mandates Dow-ney be disqualified from receiving benefits due to her misrepresentation, even though
KRS 341.370(2) states:
A worker shall be disqualified from receiving benefits for any week with respect to which he knounngly made a false statement to establish his right to or the amount of his benefits, and, within the succéeding twеnty-four (24) months, for the additional weeks immediately following the date of discovery, not to exceed a total of fifty-two (52), as may be determined by the secretary,
(emphasis added).
Downey argues her statements, despite their falsity, should not affеct her right to benefits. Her reasoning, is that the Commission ultimately determined that Kindred’s direction to cover two halls was unreasonable, and her refusal to obey and resulting termination did not constitute termination for misconduct. In other words, she was entitled to benefits and the misrepresentation was immaterial to that entitlement; Downey points out that statutes for unemployment compensation “evince[ ] a humanitarian spirit, and ... should be so construed[,]” Alliant Health Sys. v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n,
Conversely, the Commission argues KRS 341.370(2) is a separate provision, and is enforced independently. Thus, notwithstanding Downey’s entitlement to benefits because she was terminated through no fault of her own, she knowingly provided false statements when trying to establish :her right to оr the amount, of her unemployment benefits.; Accordingly,.the statute demands Downey “shall” be disqualified from receiving benefits.
Statutory construction requires certain principles be followed in order to give any statute its full and proper effect as intended by the legislature. When construing a statute, the function of the reviewing-court is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. Vance v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n,
If the legislature intended to create an exception for otherwise qualified employees not to be subject to disqualification if they provide knowingly false statements in order to receive benefits or in respect to the amount of their benefits, the legislature would have written the section so as to reflect such an exception. .See Bailey v. Reeves,
When Downey made knowingly false statements in order to obtain her benefits, shе violated KRS 34Í.370(2). The facts misrepresented by Downey were solely for the determination of her immediate entitlement to benefits. The purpose of the form upon which she provided these statements was to determine her eligibility for benefits. Thus, Downey’s attempt to characterize these facts as immaterial is untenable and fails to support her argument that she should be excepted from the disqualification requirement of KRS 341.370(2).
IV. Conclusion
Regardless of hеr ultimate award or denial of benefits, .Downey disqualified herself from receiving benefits when she violated KRS 341.370(2).
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the Warren Circuit Court’s Order.
ALL CONCUR.
Notes
. Kentucky Revised Statutes.
. KRS 341.370(6) states, " ‘Discharge for misconduct’ as used in this section shall include but not be limited to ... refusing to obey reasonable instructions];.]”
. Downey says that she was advised by an employee of the unemployment office to put these reasons down for her termination as none of the other options specifically "fit” her situation. However, this does not seem to be addressed in the Referee decision, the. Com.mission’s finding, or the Warren Circuit Court’s opinion. As this issue is not raised in Downey’s brief, this Court will not consider it.
. As a result of thе Commission’s decision, Downey was directed to repay the amount of $1,660 to the Commission which represented the benefits she was áctuálly paid for the four Weeks, October 23 to November 19, 2011, immediately following her termination; was disquаlified from receiving benefits for -the ■ two weeks, November '19 to December 3, 2011; and,-,by virtue-of the twenty-six week disqualification imposed by regulation, -'.was - disqualified from receiving benefits from December-3, 2011 to June 3, 2012.
. Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
.- - Kindred is a named party tо this appeal, but did not file a brief. Kindred filed a cross-appeal in the Warren Circuit Court with respect to the Commission's determinations that Kindred’s instruction to cover two halls was unreasonable, that Downey's refusal was justified, аnd that Downey did not commit misconduct for refusing to obey. The trial court dismissed Kindred’s cross-appeal determining that it was not an "aggrieved” party, within the meaning of KRS 341.450(1), and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to decide that issue. Kindred did not file a further cross-appeal in this court: .