Steffen v. Davison, Copple, Copple & Copple
814 P.2d 29
Idaho
1991
Check Treatment

*1 case, the district court ruled that lacked

jurisdiction by declaring precluded itself on

the basis that the Industrial Commission judicata.

decision raised the bar of res Supreme properly Court ruled for appeal

Martin in the latter Martin

case, and the judgment of dismissal was

reversed the cause remanded to the Argonaut’s

district court for trial. tactics

plus Commission error and district court successfully kept

error injured worker family impoverished years,

and his

all time denied Richard Martin the surgery

corrective which desperately

needed. For the reader who wants to learn gross deprivation of “sure cer-

tain relief” which devastated Martin

family just years, for not months but one only peruse

need turn to Heese3 and

content 102 Idaho at 605 n. 635 P.2d

at n. 5. Further reading informative

will found in analysis Thomp-

son at case 102 Idaho at at

967. STEFFEN, 504-44-9910,

Donna D. SSN

Claimant-Appellant,

DAVISON, COPPLE, & COPPLE COP

PLE, Employer, Idaho, State Employment, Respon

dents.

No. 18681. Idaho,

Supreme Court of

Boise, February 1991 Term.

June cases, were, rereading indulging 3. On completely Heese in retro- but and remained un- spect, why one wonders and how it was that aware of the tendered invitation overrule gave trilogy four comprehensive members of this Court considerable which was in a contained Thompson special attention and the two Martin concurrence.

BOYLE, Justice. appeal

This from an order of is an a de- which affirmed Industrial Commission Department of of Idaho cision the State re- ordering unemployment insurance bene- payment of upon to are called determine fits. We supports the whether the record appellant determination examiner’s employ- voluntarily quit her Donna Steffen re- and that she ment without cause overpayment ceived an benefits. Steffen, experienced legal sec- an

Donna working secretary for retary, began as a 27, 1989, on respondent law firm on March status, continued that probationary a May 5, employment until 1989. Prior re- had working respondent for she been ceiving unemployment insurance benefits a wages previous earned from based on employer. indi- before us

A review of the record within one week after Steffen cates that secretary by respondent, another was hired con- Steffen became was terminated. perform ade- she could not cerned that attorneys she quately satisfy the instability in the perceived some secretarial addition, mis- grew to Steffen staff. supervising attorney and feared her trust might permanent. employment her not 1989, 4, May found handwrit- Steffen On supervising her on her desk which ten note night before while attorney had made asked talking a client. When Steffen with note, attorney he wadded about he did laughingly told her that up was things to make her think she those might ask losing mind and that he does not exist. Steffen find a file that of this incident upset as a result became intentionally at- and felt job more difficult. tempting to make her law employment with the quit her Steffen 5,May firm on unem- partial full or paid 6,May period of for the ployment benefits Boise, Atkins, pro se. Donna Steffen through September with ending Gen., exception week June EchoHawk, Debbie Larry Atty. J. no Gen., Boise, which she received benefits. ar- Straight, Atty. Deputy Z. unemployment ben- Steffen filed Idaho. When respondent State of gued, for ending April involving disputes claim for factual efit weeks review cases 6, 1989, May report any wages did determining she is whether find- restricted to though had earned or even she ings fact Industrial Commission respondent during firm worked law supported by compe- are substantial *3 period seeking In of time. addition to tent evidence in the record. Jensen v. earnings employ- information about and Siemsen, 1, (1990); 794 P.2d 271 118 Idaho ment, 8(c) item of the claim form out filled 112 City Corp., Burnside v. Gate Steel longer “If by you asks are no 1040, (1987); P.2d Idaho 739 339 Ullrich v. working any employers, of the 820, above Thorpe Elec., 109 Idaho 712 P.2d 521 work, than lack for other of check a box (1985); City Burley, Booth v. 99 Idaho of explain in # 11.” foregoing ques- 229, (1978). 580 75 As this Court tion has three boxes a placement of Booth, in we to “indepen- stated decline alongside “Discharge,” the mark words dently adopt findings of fact at variance “Quit,” (See and “Other.” attached Claim- with those of the Industrial Commission 5.) ant’s Exhibit Steffen did not answer findings supported by where such are sub- question did any this not check of the competent stantial and evidence in the three boxes for the reason that she did not 232, at 580 record.” 99 Idaho P.2d at report feel it to necessary separation have held fac- We likewise that where the respondent from law firm because she con- findings the tual of Industrial Commission probationary. sidered her to be by compe- are sustained substantial and tent, evidence, though conflicting they will Following hearing the of Notice be appeal. reversed on v. Jensen Overpayment, appeals the examiner found Siemsen, 1, (1990); 118 Idaho 794 P.2d 271 that claimant voluntarily quit employ- 267, Kyle Corp., v. 109 707 Beco Idaho respondent ment with firm law without Quali-Dent (1985); P.2d 378 Wood v. Den- good cause and ordered the case returned 1020, Clinics, tal 107 Idaho 405 695 P.2d to claims repayment the examiner for of (1985); v. County Cornwell Kootenai $2,504.00 overpaid in unemployment bene- 823, Sheriff, (1984). 106 Idaho 683 P.2d 859 fits. The Industrial Commission reviewed the record proceedings and held that II. the the appeals decision of examiner supported by competent substantial and ev- Industrial Commission Review idence. We affirm. enacting 72-1368(g), In the legisla- I.C. § provided ture that the Industrial Commis- I. upon sion’s review would be the based

Scope Review Judicial of proceedings ap- record of the before the peals examiner. The Industrial Commis- It is well the established that responsibility in scope sion’s of review Court’s review unemployment compensa of employment compensation clearly claims is tion cases is limited the Idaho Constitu 72-1368(g). set in forth I.C. prior tion § decisions this of Court reviewing only questions law. of Idaho The record the before Commission shall Const, 9; 5, art. Jensen v. 118 of proceedings consist the record of be- § 1, (1990); examiner, Idaho 794 P.2d 271 v. the appeals ap- Puckett fore unless it Corrections, Dep’t pears Idaho 107 Idaho to the Commission that the inter- of 1022, (1985); justice 695 P.2d 407 of require Parker v. Saint ests the interested 415, 101 Plywood, parties permitted Maries Idaho 614 P.2d present additional (1980); Tree, Inc., event, 955 v. Harris Green 100 evidence. In that the Commission 227, (1979); discretion, Idaho 596 P.2d 99 v. in may, Simmons its sole conduct a Employment, hearing 99 Idaho to receive additional evidence or of (1978); 581 P.2d 336 v. City may appeals Booth refer the matter back to the (1978); Burley, 99 Idaho 580 P.2d 75 examiner for an additional Co., Simplot Hutchinson v. 98 Idaho J.R. decision. On the basis of the record (1977). addition, 563 P.2d 404 our proceedings appeals In before the evidence, any good if constitutes cause is the stan- as well as additional what allowed, affirm, applied the re- dard of as to the Commission shall reasonableness verse, modify, average set aside or revise man or woman. v. Jensen Siem- (1990); sen, may decision of the examiner or Bur- Agency, roughs refer matter back ex- Sec. proceedings. P.2d 473 We aminer for further Idaho have held that the test used to determine case, reviewing the instant Indus- person cause is whether a reasonable record trial Commission reviewed the resulting would consider circumstances proceedings examin- before real, to be a claimant’s present- er and no additional evidence was *4 compelling. and v. substantial Jensen ed. Siemsen, (1990); 1, 118 Idaho 794 P.2d 271 Homes, v. 99 Idaho Meyer Skyline Mobile III. 754, (1979). 589 P.2d 89 Unemployment Eligibility For Benefits addition, provides a the law also that applicable may unemployment The used to determine claimant denied ben- rule be report is if a to a unemploy- whether a claimant entitled to efits there is wilfull failure compensation relating is for ment benefits set forth in material fact to the claim bene- 72-1366(e). Unemployment 72-1366(Z) provides: I.C. benefits fits. I.C. § § may awarded if: (Z) A not benefit claimant shall be en- unemployment is not to the fact to benefits if it is determined that

His due titled voluntarily wilfully he his has false or employment that left he made a statement good representation wilfully report with his or failed to without cause connected employment, discharged or he fact in obtain said that a material order to (52) period fifty-two in his a for misconduct connection with em- benefits for the ployment. weeks from date of said determina- tion. Said claimant shall also be liable to is regard Idaho law in this well repay any to the fund sums received for provides that clearly established and claim in a week which the claimant made eligible ant is Steffen statement, misrepresentation, false or benefits, although compensation she volun report failed to a material fact. employment, if tarily terminated her she cause,” proving The “good did with v. Siem burden of estab so Jensen sen, 1, (1990); lishing statutory eligibility unemploy 118 Idaho 794 P.2d 271 Ellis Produce, the claimant. v. Fruit 103 Idaho ment benefits rests with Northwest & 1, (1982); 794 821, Boodry Eddy 914 v. v. 118 Idaho P.2d 654 P.2d Jensen 165, (1990); Univ., Co., Pyeatt P.2d 271 v. State 98 Bakeries 88 Idaho 397 256 Idaho 424, (1977). Thus, (1964); Idaho Burroughs Employment v. Sec. (1963), case, present 473 Steffen has the burden to Agency, 86 Idaho 387 P.2d the supervising options prove that conduct of her explored prior all viable ter the good her to minating employment, created cause for vol Ellis North Produce, untarily and that she 103 Idaho 654 leave west Fruit & (1982); prior to pursued all reasonable alternatives Fong P.2d 914 v. Jerome School (1979); Dist, terminating employment. After hear 101 P.2d 1004 Idaho 611 evidence, House, appeals examiner ing the Rogers v. Trim 588 voluntarily left her em found that In order to constitute Steffen cause, without respondent law firm good provide ployment cir with our cases continuing compel the cause and there cumstances which decision real, The imagi work to her. decision employment must be not available leave thorough reci substantial, trifling, examiner contains a appeals and reason nary, not whimsical; background and a of the factual able, must be some tation there application of the thoughtful analysis produced and ne compulsion by extraneous circumstances, Industrial Commis- to the facts. The and the standard law cessitous repaid. sion thereafter reviewed the record of the 72-1369. Based on the evi- I.C. § level, proceedings adopted presented dence at the claim- appeals exam- prove ant Steffen did not or establish findings iner’s of fact and conclusions of of the finder of fact that a satisfaction law. person under those circum- reasonable IV. employment. stances would terminate Supports Findings Evidence expressly Ineligibility wilfully report For found that failed to Benefits material information to the A review of the examiner’s application in her for unem adopted by decision as the Industrial Com ployment benefits. Our review of the thoughtful mission reveals consideration of record, particularly the continued claim presented analy facts and contains an report April May form for the 29 and conflicting sis of citing evidence. After 8(c) period where item was not com applicable controlling case law and stat (see 5), pleted attached Claimant’s Exhibit utes the examiner made the follow finding satisfies us that the of wilfull fail ing analysis factual of the case: report supported ure to a material fact is *5 quit The claimant employment be- by 72-1366(Z) pro the evidence. I.C. § attorney cause she felt that the could not vides that a claimant is not entitled to they be trusted since had terminated an- unemployment receive if benefits it is de employee other might and she termi- wilfully termined that the claimant failed nated quit at some future date. also She report a material fact. The information because she asserts that because she felt sought 8(c) continuing in item claim trying to “drive by form is a material fact to be considered crazy.” The evidence the record in the eval job establishes the claimant’s was not in eligibility uation of a claimant’s or entitle any jeopardy. person who had been unemployment ment to benefits. discharged making had been errors and findings Where the factual of the Indus perform was not able to the work to the by trial Commission are sustained substan employer. standards of the The claimant competent, though conflicting tial and evi given had been assurances her em- dence, findings, we defer to those Idaho ployer given and had been a substantial Const, 9; Siemsen, art. Jensen v. § wage increase in to communicate their (1990); Idaho 794 P.2d 271 Guillard v. position. commitment to her and the The Department Employment, 100 Idaho evidence in the record establishes that (1979), 603 P.2d 981 and we will not the incident which caused the claimant to reverse the Industrial Commission’s deci- resignation submit her was one in which id.; appeal. sion on Jensen v. the attorney joking with her. The Beco, Kyle v. 109 Idaho 707 P.2d 378 overly claimant was sensitive to the situ- (1985); Quali-Dent Wood v. Dental Clin- ation. The claimant has not established ics, only that her alternative was to leave We therefore affirm the decision employment. The claimant has not es- appeals examiner and the Industrial Com- good tablished cause in connection with mission found which that Steffen did not employment having voluntarily quite good employ- have cause to terminate her the work. ment, repay and ordered that she must presented overpaid The case at the level Em- benefits to the interpretation ployment Security an involves and resolution of Fund. Idaho Code 72-1366(Z). conflicting evidence. Based on the conflict- § ing submitted, evidence exam- respondent. Affirmed. Costs to No at- persuaded iner was not that Steffen left torney appeal. fees on Accord- cause. ingly, C.J., Steffen was BAKES, found to have received JOHNSON $2,504.00 overpayment McDEVITT, JJ., an which must be concur.

BISTLINE, Justice, giving no one was concurring believed that future at specially. straight her answers about her firm, to the and that she could not talk the finding by appeals examin- made the Copple, partner, Robert about the senior adopted by the Industrial Commis- er and problem. On this issue of whether or not ineligible sion that Donna Steffen is to the senior Steffen could have talked troubling most benefits is security, partner job Joyce her John- about largely it turns on the fact that the as son, manager loyal the office who was simply did not believe firm, by testi- called as a witness the law was reasonable in her reaction that Steffen fied as follows: to certain stressful events that occurred Davison, working Copple, while she was at you Did ever tell her she EXAMINER: Copple Copple. clear While is that spot be fired on the if she ever would stress, Steffen could not withstand the Copple? in and talked to Robert went mythical examiner found that may A. I have said that there was a “average man woman” have or would been past, prior in girl, that I was told is and what is able to. What reasonable my employment, that tried to discuss (in “overly ap- the words of the sensitive” office, personal guess, problem I with examiner) peals exceedingly can be an diffi- him and he did not like it. He more or make, judgment requiring cult es- go pretty spot. much less let her sence a determination whether the frustrat- telling I But don’t recall her she employee psychological- ed was or was not spot. would be fired on the ly tough enough. equivocating response Tr. is At the before the exam- degree sup- found a substantial of truth presented iner Steffen considerable evi- porting the claimant’s worries. demonstrating precariousness dence job day Steffen decided to leave the situation, job Terry Copple, which involving after the incident occurred Johnson, supervising attorney, Joyce “joke” supervising made manager, attempted downplay. the office occurred. Steffen testified: uneasy job Steffen became about her secur- Okay. Thursday morning, A. On *7 ity when one week after she arrived one of I Terry Copple my had been at desk and years the firm’s secretaries with three of piece him yellow had asked what this firm at the was fired for mak- paper was for. There was a name and a ing many firing too errors. That reduced phone grabbed number on it. He it and the number of secretaries from four up away wadded it and threw it and he Feasel, secretary, three. Another Barbara said, ‘Well, just laughed just and he I was due to return to the firm in the near things laying maternity future after a leave those around to make leave. This wor- you you’re losing your think mind.’ ried Steffen because one of the firm’s law- yers, Ludwig, Scott told her there that not work for four secretaries and that the Q. you joking? Did ask if he was partner, Copple, senior Robert would not Well, standing laugh- A. he was there allow four secretaries in the office. Tr. 23. ing joking. like he was To him it’s a

Joyce Ludwig Johnson and Scott told Stef- joke. employee joke. To an it’s not a fen com- that Barbara Feasel would not be already When she knows that he has However, ing back to work. when Steffen employee. done that to another Feasel, called Feasel insisted that she was Tr. 25-26. back, coming years that she had three se- simply examiner The firm niority, paid that had for two any testimony leave, persuaded by of Steffen’s maternity months of and that Don overly ruled Steffen was sensitive Copple, charge personnel proved decisions, to the situation and had not that her had assured her that she had a job maternity only job. alternative was to leave the when she came back from appears rather leave. Tr. 23. While this conclusion to be callous, findings of the factual unfair and examiner, adopted by the as Commission, will not be reversed

Industrial appeal supported by substantial when competent evidence in the record. Jeri-

sen v. testimony tend- As there was

ed to minimize the seriousness Steffen’s

concerns, that there was it cannot be said support ap- evidence to

not substantial findings. Equally

peals examiner’s sub- supports the claimant.

stantial evidence obviously found Don- testimony to be less than cred-

na Steffen’s

ible, mem- majority of this Court’s and a

bers decline to intervene.

Accordingly, weight past I to the bow concur, authority and albeit present

not without reluctance. Boise,

Manweiler, Cameron, Bevis & Manweiler defendant-appellant. Howard I. argued. Chasan, Bauer, Boise, ROMAN, Claimant-Respondent, Bohner, Walton & Frank claimant-respondent. Andrew M. Cha- argued. san Defendant, HORSLEY, Steve BISTLINE, Justice. Haun) (hereinafter in- Group is an Haun Inc., Group, Employer, Haun contracting en- corporated general business Defendant-Appellant. gaged largely in new home construction. No. 18571. only Haun are the Harold Haun and Susan *8 officers; employees no Idaho, corporation has Supreme Court of compensa- Boise, purchase and does not worker’s February 1991 Term. The actual construction tion insurance. July contracted out to subcontrac- the houses is employees, has If the subcontractor tors. Group Haun has work- it must show to cover those compensation insurance er’s employees. began construction of 1988 Haun late Haun’s oral home Boise.

a custom built roof Horsley to shake with Steve contract Horsley’s compen- provided that the house square. Ac- per completed would be sation Haun, be- it was understood cording to Horsley would of them that tween the two Horsley did not have no one. employ