Henderson v. Eclipse Traffic Control

• Decision Date: 05 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 34526.,34526.
• Citation: 147 Idaho 628,213 P.3d 718
• Parties: Raymajean HENDERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. ECLIPSE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND FLAGGING, INC., Employer, Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor, Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

213 P.3d 718

147 Idaho 628

Raymajean HENDERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. ECLIPSE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND FLAGGING, INC., Employer, Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor, Respondents.

No. 34526.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene, April 2009 Term.

June 5, 2009.

Starr Kelso, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondents. Tracey K. Rolfsen argued.

J. JONES, Justice.

Raymajean Henderson appeals the Industrial Commission's decision upholding retroactive denials of her claims for unemployment insurance benefits. We reverse.

I.

Raymajean Henderson worked on a seasonal basis as a road construction foreman for Eclipse Traffic Control & Flagging, Inc. (Eclipse). Henderson worked for Eclipse throughout most of the year, but was laid off each winter due to lack of work. During the seasonal layoffs, Henderson typically filed claims for, and received, unemployment insurance benefits. Of importance to this appeal are Henderson's benefit claims for the winters of 2004-05 and 2005-06.

On November 16, 2004, after being laid off for the winter, Henderson filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which became effective on November 14, 2004. She disclosed that Eclipse had laid her off due to lack of work during the off-season but had committed to rehiring her when the weather improved. Thus, the Idaho Department of Labor (Department) classified Henderson as "job attached"¹ and required that she maintain weekly contact with Eclipse in order to fulfill her work-seeking requirements.

Less than one month after being awarded benefits, Henderson and her husband moved to a residence they owned in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. While there, Henderson continued collecting unemployment insurance benefits. She filed weekly claim reports from December 12, 2004 to February 26, 2005 and received weekly benefit checks in the amount of $227.00. In her claim reports, Henderson indicated that she was not living outside of her local labor market area. Yet, at the time, Henderson was living in Hawaii and had changed her residence address on file with the Department to her residence in Hawaii.

Henderson lived in Hawaii for most of the winter. In February 2005, however, she returned to Idaho and changed her address on file with the Department back to her Idaho address. In March, Henderson resumed working for Eclipse. She remained employed there until June 2005, at which point she began working for Aapex Construction, Inc. (Aapex). Like her employment at Eclipse, Henderson's position at Aapex was seasonal.

Aapex laid Henderson off the following winter. On November 14, 2005, Henderson filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which became effective on November 13, 2005. Once again, the Department classified Henderson as a job attached employee and required her to maintain weekly contact with Aapex to fulfill her work-seeing requirements.

On December 12, 2005, Henderson moved to her residence in Hawaii. Just like the previous winter, she continued to collect unemployment insurance benefits while living there. Henderson filed claim reports for the weeks ending on December 10, 2005 through April 1, 2006 and received weekly benefit checks in the amount of $325.00. Although she changed her residence address on file with the Department to her home in Hawaii and spent the entire winter there, Henderson continued to indicate on her weekly claim forms that she was not away from the area in which she normally worked.

Henderson returned to Idaho in April 2006 and resumed working for Aapex. Once back in Idaho, she changed her residence address on file with the Department back to her Idaho address. Nearly one year later, on February 13, 2007, Henderson called the Department to inquire about a tax form she had not received for her 2006 benefits. A Department employee, Shirley Ackerman, informed Henderson that the form had been mailed to her Hawaii address. Upon noticing Henderson's Hawaii address, Ackerman became suspicious of Henderson's eligibility and decided to conduct an investigation. Based on her investigation, Ackerman concluded that Henderson was ineligible for some of the previously awarded benefits because, while she was living in Hawaii, she was away "from the area where she normally works ... [and] therefore was not available for work." Consequently, Ackerman determined that Henderson "will be denied [benefits for] the weeks effective her change of address ... and continuing until she returned to Idaho and changed her address again."

On March 30, 2007, the Department issued two eligibility determinations regarding Henderson's eligibility for benefits during the winters of 2004-05 and 2005-06. According to the determinations, Henderson was not eligible for benefits from December 12, 2004 to February 26, 2005 and December 4, 2005 to April 1, 2006 because she was out of the area in which she normally works during those periods and, thus, was not available for work. The Department subsequently issued a determination of overpayment, demanding Henderson repay the benefits she received while living in Hawaii.

Henderson appealed the eligibility determinations to an appeals examiner, who affirmed the Department's determinations. The appeals examiner reasoned that Henderson was not "available for suitable work" while living in Hawaii because she was outside of her local labor market. Consequently, he concluded that the benefits Henderson received for the periods she was in Hawaii were overpayments. Although the examiner acknowledged that the overpayments were "not the result of a false statement or misrepresentation made by [Henderson]," he ordered her to repay the overpayments because they were not solely the result of Departmental error.

Henderson then appealed the appeals examiner's determination to the Commission, which affirmed the decision after conducting a de novo review of the record. Based on the appeals examiner's findings of fact and some of its own additional findings, the Commission concluded that Henderson was not eligible for benefits during the periods she was in Hawaii. Relying on a case from California, the Commission reasoned that "when [Henderson] left Idaho, she essentially took a `temporary vacation' from the Idaho labor market." See In re Gosha, Precedent Benefit Decision No. P-B-260 (Cal.1976). Because Henderson moved to a location "in which there [was] no available employment" and she had "no reasonable expectation of finding any," she voluntarily "rendered herself unavailable for work." The Commission concluded Henderson was obligated to repay the benefits she received while residing in Hawaii.

After the Commission denied Henderson's motion for reconsideration, she appealed to this Court. On appeal, Henderson challenges the Commission's conclusion that she was ineligible for benefits during the periods she was in Hawaii. Initially, she asserts that the Department lacked jurisdiction to reconsider her eligibility for those periods. Alternatively, she contends that even if the Department had jurisdiction, it erred in concluding she was unavailable for work. In making this argument, Henderson challenges the validity of the Department's regulation defining "availability." Finally, Henderson argues that, even if she was ineligible for benefits while living in Hawaii, she should not be required to repay the overpayments.

II.

On appeal we are presented with five issues, namely: whether (1) the Department lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Henderson's eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits; (2) the Department's regulation defining the availability requirement for job attached claimants exceeds the Department's statutory authority; (3) the Commission's finding that Henderson was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits was supported by substantial and competent evidence; (4) the Commission erred in concluding that Henderson was required to repay the overpayments; and (5) Henderson is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal.

A.

On appeal from an Industrial Commission decision, this Court's review is limited to questions of law. IDAHO CONST. art. V, § 9; see also Pimley v. Best Values, Inc., 132 Idaho 432, 434, 974 P.2d 78, 80 (1999). Such questions are subject to free review. Ewins v. Allied Sec., 138 Idaho 343, 346, 63 P.3d 469, 472 (2003). Conversely, the Commission's factual findings will be upheld so long as they are not clearly erroneous. See Oxley v. Med. Rock Specialties, Inc., 139 Idaho 476, 479, 80 P.3d 1077, 1080 (2003). Factual findings will not be regarded as clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. See Pimley, 132 Idaho at 434, 974 P.2d at 80. "Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." Uhl v. Ballard Med. Prods., Inc., 138 Idaho 653, 657, 67 P.3d 1265, 1269 (2003). In determining whether substantial and competent evidence exists, we will "not re-weigh the evidence or consider whether we would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented." Id. Rather, it is up to the Commission to weigh the conflicting evidence and "determine the credit and the weight to be given the testimony admitted." Bullard v. Sun Valley Aviation, Inc., 128 Idaho 430, 432, 914 P.2d 564, 566 (1996). Moreover, when reviewing one of the Commission's decisions, this Court "views all ... facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Commission." Oxley, 139 Idaho at 479, 80 P.3d at 1080 (quoting Boley v. State Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 130 Idaho 278, 280, 939 P.2d 854, 856 (1997)).

Whether an unemployment compensation claimant has satisfied statutory eligibility requirements is an issue of fact. Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 112 Idaho 1040, 1042, 739 P.2d 339, 341 (1987). Thus, an eligibility determination will be upheld if it is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Id. The...