Guevara v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Decision Date01 March 1977
Citation374 A.2d 1101,172 Conn. 492
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesEnrique GUEVARA v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.

Donald E. Wasik, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Leonard M. Caine, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant).

Whitney M. Lewendon, Danbury, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.

HOUSE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (George, J. ) on an appeal by the plaintiff, Enrique Guevara, from a decision of the unemployment compensation commissioner for the fifth congressional district. The commissioner's decision from which the appeal was taken was rendered on January 23, 1973, and the appeal to the Superior Court was taken on February 1, 1973. Accordingly, the provisions of Public Act No. 74-339 establishing an appellate system for the review of employment security, manpower and unemployment compensation proceedings, which became effective July 1, 1974, and Public Act No. 75-339 concerning appeals from unemployment compensation proceedings, which became effective October 1, 1975, have no application to the proceedings in this case which are governed by the statutes in effect prior to the effective dates of the later statutes.

The case arose from a ruling of the defendant administrator denying unemployment compensation benefits to the plaintiff because the plaintiff had refused to apply for a job to which he was referred by the administrator. The plaintiff appealed this denial to the unemployment compensation commissioner who affirmed the decision of the administrator. The plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court (Hull, J. ) which remanded the case for a finding concerning the availability of public transportation between the plaintiff's residence and the place of employment to which the plaintiff had been referred. On the remand, the commissioner found that although taxi service was available during the time in question there was no other public transportation available. The court (George, J. ) thereupon sustained the plaintiff's appeal. The defendant administrator then moved to open and reargue the court's decision. This motion was granted but the court affirmed its prior ruling and judgment was rendered reversing the commissioner and sustaining the appeal. It is from this judgment that the present appeal was taken.

The pertinent facts found by the commissioner are as follows: The plaintiff was a forty-three-year -old single male who resided in Danbury and who had been employed by the Danbury public school system from January 13, 1972, through April 10, 1972. He applied for unemployment compensation and on May 30, 1972, the state employment service referred him to a position with Kanthal Corporation in Bethel where suitable employment was available for him. Bethel is a part of the Danbury labor market. The plaintiff "on the spot" refused the referral, claiming that he had no personal means of transportation, that the distance between his home and the Kanthal plant in Bethel was too great for him to walk in the morning, and that he would be too tired to walk back home at the conclusion of his day's work.

It was found that, depending on the route taken, the distance between the plaintiff's residence and the available work at Kanthal Corporation was at the most 2.9 miles and at the least 2.1 miles. The plaintiff did not introduce any evidence substantiating his claim that that distance was too...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Robinson v. Unemployment Sec. Bd. of Review
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 1980
    ...v. Administrator, 177 Conn. 132, 134, 411 A.2d 921; DaSilva v. Administrator, 175 Conn. 562, 564, 402 A.2d 755; Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101; Bartlett v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 497, 505, 115 A.2d 671. The court's function is to determine, on the record, whet......
  • Bennett v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 14 Septiembre 1994
    ...177 Conn. 132, 134, 411 A.2d 921 (1979); DaSilva v. Administrator, 175 Conn. 562, 564, 402 A.2d 755 (1978); Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977); Taminski v. Administrator, 168 Conn. 324, 326, 362 A.2d 868 "[T]he interpretation of statutes presents a question o......
  • Cervantes v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 1979
    ...its function to adjudicate questions of fact, nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the board. Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101. Rather, it is the function of the court to determine, on the record, "whether there is a logical and rational basis fo......
  • Poll v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • 10 Agosto 1984
    ...293 (1980); see also Practice Book § 519; DaSilva v. Administrator, 175 Conn. 562, 564, 402 A.2d 755 (1978); Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495-96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977). The referee made the following finding of fact: "2. The claimant established a valid TRA entitlement effective ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT