Biles v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv.
Decision Date | 25 October 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 95-CA-25,95-CA-25 |
Citation | 107 Ohio App.3d 114,667 N.E.2d 1244 |
Parties | , 69 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 530 BILES, Appellant, v. OHIO BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Martin, Browne, Hull & Harper, Steven J. McCready and Michael C. Weaver, Springfield, for appellee.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General and Joseph J. Zaccaria, Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, for appellees.
Carolyn L. Biles (appellant) is appealing from the decision of the Common Pleas Court of Clark County, Ohio, which affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying her unemployment compensation benefits after she left the employment of Monte Zinn Chevrolet in Springfield, Ohio.
The appellant's initial application for benefits was denied by the bureau with the following statement:
Appellant, by then represented by counsel, filed an application for reconsideration, which was denied on November 18, 1992. She filed an appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which held a hearing on March 26, 1993, where both the appellant and Monte Zinn, owner of Monte Zinn Chevrolet, appeared with counsel and testified. The facts of the matter were found and set forth by the hearing officer in his decision as follows:
The hearing officer affirmed the decision of the bureau denying appellant unemployment compensation pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a), which provides that no individual may be paid benefits if the Administrator finds that the applicant quit his or her work "without just cause." The hearing officer stated his reasons as follows:
After her application for a further appeal was denied, Biles timely filed an appeal to the common pleas court pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(O). That section sets forth the standard of review by the common pleas court as follows:
The Clark County Common Pleas Court heard oral arguments on the matter on September 8, 1994, received briefs of counsel representing both parties, and on January 25, 1995, affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review with the following entry:
It is from that decision that appellant's timely appeal is before us.
Initially, we must determine our proper standard of review of the decision of the common pleas court in an unemployment compensation case. Until very recently, it seemed to be settled law in Ohio that the standard of review was abuse of discretion. In other words, an appellate court could not overturn a decision of the common pleas court upholding, or overruling, a decision of the board of review, unless it found that the court had abused its discretion in finding that the board's decision itself was either unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, or not so, pursuant to the standard of review set forth in the Revised Code, as quoted above. The seminal case on this issue is Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato Chips Co. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 159, 11 OBR 242, 463 N.E.2d 1280. In Angelkovski the Court of Appeals for Franklin County carefully explained the role of both the common pleas court and a reviewing court in judging actions of the board of review as follows:
"The resolution of purely factual questions is for the board of review and its referees as triers of the facts. Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. Roach (1947), 148 Ohio St. 511, 518 [36 O.O. 167, 170, 76 N.E.2d 79, 83-84]. The role of the court of common pleas, upon an appeal based on factual grounds, is limited to determining whether the board's decision is supported by evidence in the record. Kilgore v. Bd. of Review (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 69, 71 [31 O.O.2d 108, 109, 206 N.E.2d 423, 424]. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board; it may not reverse simply because it interprets the evidence differently than did the board. Fahl v. Bd. of Review (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 286 [31 O.O.2d 426, 207 N.E.2d 774]; Kilgore v. Bd. of Review, supra. Because the statutory standard of review is couched in terms of manifest weight of the evidence, a decision of the board supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the controversy will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. See C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 [8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578]. Stated another way, a reviewing court will not reverse on the manifest weight of the evidence where reasonable minds could weigh the evidence and arrive at contrary conclusions. In re Parker v. Anheuser-Busch (Jan. 28, 1983 [sic, 1982] ), Franklin App. No. 81AP-718, unreported ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.
... ... Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., Ky., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (1973) ... 11. See ... of Employment Services, 256 N.W.2d 287 (Minn.1977); Biles v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 107 Ohio App.3d 114, ... ...
-
Opal Morris v. Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 02-LW-4066
... ... trial court, Coughlin v. Ohio Bur. Of Emp. Serv ... (Apr. 10, 2002), 9th Dist. No. 01CA007933, at 2, ... employment. Biles v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1995), ... 107 Ohio App.3d 114, 122, 667 ... ...
-
Radcliff v. Steen Elec., Inc.
... Page 794 ... 841 N.E.2d 794 ... 164 Ohio App.3d 161 ... 2005-Ohio-5503 ... RADCLIFF, Appellant, ... In Biles v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 114, ... ...
-
Stinespring v. Natorp Garden Stores, Inc.
...127 Ohio App.3d 213 ... 711 N.E.2d 1104 ... STINESPRING et al., ... ...