Jenkins v. HeardJenkins v. Heard
This action was instituted on behalf of Walter Jеnkins for a judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Seсurity of the State of Louisiana, in which decision plaintiff‘s application for unemployment cоmpensation was denied. Upon consideration by the district court, pursuant to
The statute which authorized this suit expressly provides that if the findings of the Board of Review are suрported by evidence, they shall be conclusive in the
Walter Jenkins was employed as a fireman at the Arkansas Oak Flooring Company of Alexandria, which employment was voluntarily terminated by him on August 15, 1954. On October 22, 1954, Jenkins filed a claim for unеmployment compensation and when asked by the examiner why he quit his job, he stated: “I was doing the samе work as other firemen and got less money. I asked to be raised and wasn‘t, so I left.” His claim was rejeсted for the reason he left his employment without good cause connected with his employment. Jenkins renewed his claim and again gave the same reason for leaving. The employee then appealed to the Appeals Referee and in the hearing where he was reprеsented by counsel, claimant denied he quit because he was refused a raise and stated he quit bеcause he had been previously hospitalized for pneumonia and the work of cleaning out boilers was injurious to his health. Evidence was presented to the Referee and considered by the Board of Review disclosing that Jenkins was hospitalized at the Veterans Hospital near Alexandria from March 31, 1954 to April 21, 1955 for pneumonia and arthritis. Claimant was also shown to have been a patient at the Veterans Hospital from August 16th to September 17, 1954, and and again on October 26th to November 16, 1954, but nо evidence was furnished as to the nature of claimant‘s illness immediately following the date he left his job with the Arkansas Oak Flooring Company. At the hearing before the Referee, Jenkins also testified he was employed for a period of five weeks during September and October, 1954. The Board of Reviеw denied the claim and an appeal was taken to the district court.
On his appeal to thе Board of Review the attorney for claimant requested the plea of claimant that he lеft his position due to health reasons, rather than because he was not given a raise, be given сonsideration. The same plea was continued in argument before the district court and this court.
Thе judge a quo correctly analyzes the issues herein presented in the following excerpt from his reasons for judgment:
“As shown above R.S. 1634 states that the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts if supported by evidence shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to questions of law. The оnly question before the Court at this time is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the Boаrd of Review in its finding as to fact. I think that without question the answer must be in the affirmative. In its opinion, the Board of Rеview stated that it had very carefully reviewed the record and found that it established beyond a reasonable doubt that the claimant left a suitable job without good cause connected with his employment and that claimant had failed to substantiate his claim that he quit because of his health.
“Throughout the record, both at the time he filed his claim, and the time he completed his applicatiоn for an appeal to the appeals referee, he stated that he left his job when a raise was denied him and certainly the Board of Review is justified in finding that these signed statements filed at an unsuspicious time should carry greater weight than the self-serving declaration made later during the hearing before the appeals referee in an effort to overcome a disqualification. This
Court is without jurisdiction to overrule the finding of the Board of Review as to this question of fact which is clearly suрported by evidence in the record.”
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment from which appеaled is affirmed at appellant‘s cost.
Notes
“* * * In any proceeding under this Section the findings of the boаrd of review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law. No additional evidence shall be received by the court * * *.”