Turner v. BrownTurner v. Brown
The Division of Employment Security found the plaintiff to be disqualified for unemployment cоmpensation benefits. By these proceedings, the claimant seeks judi
The District Cоurt affirmed the administrative agency’s denial of unemployment compensation. The claimant consequently appeals.
The denial of unemployment benefits was based upon the statutory provision that a claimant shall be disqualified fоr. benefits if “he has left his employment without good cause connected with his emрloyment”
íhe claimant was injured on the job in March of 1962. Eight days after he settled his workmen’s compensation claim against his employer for one thousand dollars, he appeared at his employer’s office on September 26th, signed cеrtain papers, and withdrew his funds from the employer’s retirement plan. Four days latеr he applied for unemployment compensation benefits on the ground thаt he was “hurt on job — replaced”.
In denying him compensation benefits, the administrativе agency found that the claimant had voluntarily “resigned in writing” on September 26th. By his appeal, the claimant contends, inter alia, that such finding is not supported by the evidеnce.
At the agency hearing, the employer’s representative stated thаt an employee had to resign in order to obtain a refund from the retirement plan. He stated that the claimant had signed a formal resignation from employment in connection with obtaining the refund.
Although the original or a copy of this formal resignation should have been but was not introduced into evidence at the agenсy hearing, and although the employee (who cannot read) at the hearing dеnied knowing that the paper he signed constituted a resignation rather than merеly an application to receive his funds, we find that in the earlier agency рroceedings he had stated in'writing that “I did resign my job on 9-26-62 because I was hurting and couldn’t go to work”.
Upon judicial review, the courts must accept administrative determinations of fact “if supported by sufficient evidence * * *, and the jurisdiction of the court shаll be confined to questions of law,”
There being sufficient evidence to support the agency’s determination that the claimant had voluntarily resigned from his emplоyment without cause, we cannot disturb the agency determination to such effect. Accordingly, the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensаtion benefits.
Because of this holding, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the very forceful сontentions by able counsel for the claimant that an additional ground for disqualification urged — that the claimant had not reported back for work after a dоctor had discharged him as cured — is without merit, because yet another physician found the
For the reasons assigned, we аffirm the trial court judgment affirming the agency’s determination that the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
Affirmed.
On Application for Rehearing
En Banc. Rehearing denied.
Notes
. A workman who quits his employment because of a disabling on-the-job injury is not disqualified for having left his employment without goоd cause connected therewith. Broussard v. Administrator, La.App. 1 Cir.,