Coolong v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-15-02
| Decision Date | 02 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-15-02 |
| Parties | DEBRA COOLONG, Petitioner v. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondent |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
STATE OF MAINE
KENNEBEC, SS.
Petitioner Debra Coolong appeals from the majority decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission) affirming the Administrative Hearing Officer's Decision disqualifying Petitioner from receiving unemployment benefits because she refused to accept an offer of suitable work for which she was reasonably fitted. Petitioner contends that the Commission erred because the position she was offered was not suitable in light of her hearing loss.
Petitioner worked for Maine Business Services, Inc. (Manpower), a staffing agency, as a clinical administrative assistant from October 28, 2013 to November 25, 2013. Her job duties were primarily data entry. Her job ended when the project was completed. Manpower stated that Petitioner did a fantastic job.
Manpower, through the testimony of Michelle Cox, asserted that on December 31, 2013, it asked Petitioner if she was still looking for work and the Petitioner responded that she was looking for something permanent with benefits. When asked if she was available for something short-term in the meantime, Petitioner allegedly said "she would pass on that" and that she wanted something permanent with benefits. Petitioner then allegedly asked, out of curiosity, what the job assignment was, where it was, and what it entailed. Manpower informed her that it was a short-term assignment for a healthcare company, starting immediately, to place phone calls to new members. Manpower testified that Petitioner declined again reiterating that she wanted something permanent with benefits. In addition, Manpower testified that Petitioner did not discuss any work-related restrictions due to hearing loss. Petitioner, however, asserts that Manpower, through Ms. Cox, already knew about her hearing loss and the trouble it would have caused Petitioner with telephone work.
Manpower testified that Petitioner had previously applied for a position with it as a patient services representative at a hospital, and that the position was "a phone position" that involved "answering incoming calls and scheduling appointments in one of their doctors' offices." Petitioner allegedly told the employer that she did not want to pursue that position because it required her toobtain a flu shot. When Petitioner first applied for that position, she listed as prior experience, "answering incoming calls."
Petitioner applied for unemployment benefits and the deputy determined she was not qualified to receive them because she had refused an offer of suitable work. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which held a telephonic hearing on April 9, 2014, at which the Petitioner and a representative for Manpower appeared. The hearing officer also found that Petitioner was not qualified to receive benefits because she had refused an offer of suitable work. Petitioner appealed that decision to the Commission and, on June 11, 2014, the Commission heard oral argument. It did not take any new or additional evidence.
In support of her hearing loss, Petitioner introduced two charts that allegedly show her hearing loss and two letters from audiologists. The first chart appears to show Petitioner's hearing ability in relation to various sounds. The second chart contains a note at the bottom stating: Similarly, a letter from audiologist Jamie Healy opines that Petitioner has moderate hearing loss in both ears, has a ten-year-old hearing aid for her left ear that is not compatible withtelephones, and is currently waiting for funding for new hearing aids that will allow her to hear on the phone. Healy states that "[i]t will be difficult if not impossible for [Petitioner] to hear on the telephone" and "therefore employment requiring telephone use is not recommended at this time." Petitioner, Healy states, she "cannot be expected to use a telephone as part of her job requirement." Finally, an audiologist from Shapiro Hearing Aid Center, Inc., sent in a letter stating that Petitioner's "audiogram revealed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss" and that her "[w]ord recognition scores were good in both ears (80%) at [Petitioner's] most comfortable listening levels." The letter also states that Petitioner is recommended for binaural amplification and that she "doesn't do well with the one hearing aid she is wearing." Petitioner has
On November 21, 2014, the Commission majority issued a decision affirming the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer and making additional factual findings.1 In particular, the Commission explained that the issue before it was whether Petitioner refused an offer of suitable work for which she was reasonably fitted within the meaning of 26 M.R.S. § 1193(3). In finding thatPetitioner did refuse a suitable offer of work, the Commission majority explained that it found more credible the testimony of Manpower than Petitioner regarding her reasons for declining the offer. This is because Petitioner initially declined the job when offered before hearing the details because the job was not a permanent one with benefits. When Manpower provided details, Petitioner again declined the position. Petitioner, did not, however, mention that she was declining the position due to hearing loss. In addition, the Commission majority determined that Petitioner had not previously discussed with the employer a restriction on her work related to hearing loss. Indeed, Petitioner had previously applied for a position with Manpower for a job that involved answering the telephone.
The Commission majority explained that it found more credible Manpower's detailed testimony that Petitioner declined the aforementioned position because of a flu shot, not because of hearing loss. In addition, the Commission majority noted that Petitioner listed experience "answering incoming calls" when applying for her previous data entry job. It also found that despite Petitioner's undisputed hearing loss, it does not believe that was the reason she declined the position offered by Manpower. The Commission majority further explained that it afforded less weight to Petitioner's medical records because they appear to be documents that were created after the date of the offer, portions of the documents were redacted,and the records do not specify that Petitioner was unable to work answering the telephone. As a result, the Commission majority found that Petitioner refused an offer of suitable work and that the refusal was not due to a necessitous and compelling cause within the meaning of 26 M.R.S. § 1193(3). The Commission majority then disqualified Petitioner from benefits from December 29, 2013, until she earned $3,180 in employment and affirmed that Petitioner's benefit account was overpaid $2,862.
Petitioner requested reconsideration. The Commission denied the request. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the present appeal.
In reviewing decisions of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Court's review is "limited to determining whether the Commission correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are supported by any competent evidence." See McPherson v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1998 ME 177, ¶ 6, 714 A.2d 818. The Court will not disturb a decision of the Commission "unless the record before the Commission compels a contrary result." Id.; see also Gerber Dental Ctr. v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 531 A.2d 1262, 1263 (Me. 1987).
Furthermore, the Court "will not overrule findings of fact supported by substantial evidence, defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the resultant conclusion.'" Lewiston Daily Sunv. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1999 ME 90, ¶ 7, 733 A.2d 344 (quoting Crocker v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 450 A.2d 469, 471 (Me. 1982)). When conflicting evidence is presented, such conflicts are for the fact-finder to resolve. Bean v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 485 A.2d 630, 634 (Me. 1984). In particular, credibility determinations are "exclusively the province of the Commission and will not be disturbed on appeal." Sprague Electric Co. v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 544 A.2d 728, 732 (Me. 1988). Stated differently, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency merely because the evidence could give rise to more than one result. Dodd v. Sec'y of State, 526 A.2d 583, 584 (Me. 1987) (citing Gulick v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 452 A.2d 1202, 1209 (Me. 1982)). "The burden of proof clearly rests with the party seeking to overturn the decision of an administrative agency." Seven Islands Land Co. v. Me. Land Use Regulation Comm'n, 450 A.2d 475, 479 (Me. 1982) (citation omitted).
Petitioner asserts that the Commission failed to consider the length, duration, complexity and nature of her hearing disability and gave credibility, without documentation, to statements of the employer, while questioning, without evidence and despite documentation, Petitioner's credibility. Petitioner asserts that she was born with a congenital hearing disability, has lived with hearing disability her entire life, and submitted an audiogram and letters from two different audiologistsdocumenting her hearing loss and opining that she is not suited for telephone work. In addition, Petitioner asserts that she disclosed her hearing disability to Michelle Cox of Manpower during a meeting on October 25, 2013. Petitio...
To continue reading
Request your trial