Hoyle v. Virginia Employment Com'n, 1799-96-4

• Decision Date: 15 April 1997
• Docket Number: No. 1799-96-4,1799-96-4
• Citation: 24 Va.App. 533,484 S.E.2d 132
• Parties: Dawn L. HOYLE v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service and United States of America. Record
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

Page 132

484 S.E.2d 132

24 Va.App. 533

Dawn L. HOYLE v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service and United States of America.

Record No. 1799-96-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia Alexandria.

April 15, 1997.

Karl F. Weickhardt, Alexandria, for appellant.

Paul S. Stahl, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Lisa J. Rowley, Assistant Attorney General; William B. Neel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, on brief), for appellees.

Present: BENTON and ANNUNZIATA, JJ., and DUFF, Senior Judge.

BENTON, Judge.

The Virginia Employment Commission ruled that Dawn L. Hoyle was qualified for unemployment benefits following her discharge from employment by the United States Postal Service. Upon a petition for judicial review of that decision, the circuit judge remanded the case to the commission for the taking of additional evidence and reconsideration of its decision. Hoyle contends on this appeal (1) that the circuit judge lacked jurisdiction to remand the case to the commission, and (2) that the evidence in the record supports the commission's finding that she was not discharged for misconduct connected with her work. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

I.

Hoyle was a letter carrier for the Postal Service in the Northern Virginia area between 1986 and 1994. She filed for unemployment compensation following her termination from her position. After a deputy of the commission awarded Hoyle unemployment benefits, the Postal Service appealed.

At an evidentiary hearing before an appeals examiner, the evidence indicated that in 1987 Hoyle incurred an injury while working with the Postal Service and filed a claim for workers' compensation. The Federal Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) accepted Hoyle's claim. Hoyle was required to notify OWCP in the event she returned to her former job or obtained other employment. She was also required to report any wages earned while she received workers' compensation benefits, including "wages in kind."

Hoyle returned to her employment with the Postal Service in November, 1993. Although Hoyle informed OWCP of her return to work, she did not report that she had received income during the time she received workers' compensation benefits. After receiving information from an informant that Hoyle worked when she was receiving workers' compensation benefits, the Postal Service began an investigation.

Postal inspectors discovered that indeed Hoyle had earned money cleaning houses and caring for pets. The postal inspectors also learned that Hoyle had filed an application for a mortgage loan. Copies of her tax returns for 1988 and 1989, which were attached to the loan application, indicated that Hoyle was self-employed as a dog groomer and earned approximately $2,000 per month. A Postal Service representative testified that Hoyle was the subject of a criminal complaint for filing false loan documents and that he was unable to answer certain questions because doing so would jeopardize the criminal investigation.

The notice of Hoyle's termination from the Postal Service stated that she had been terminated for "improper conduct/misrepresentation of facts and intentionally failing to report employment and earnings in a compensation claim as required." Hoyle testified, however, that she had not been employed as a dog groomer. She also testified that her true tax returns reflected income only from the rental of rooms in her home in 1988 and 1989.

After the evidentiary hearing, the appeals examiner found that Hoyle was disqualified for benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with work. The appeals examiner reversed the deputy's decision. Hoyle appealed to the commission from the appeals examiner's decision.

The commission ruled that Hoyle was qualified for unemployment compensation. In its decision, the commission found that Hoyle had only earned $1,000 for cleaning houses and that although she "received a small amount of remuneration" for keeping pets, she "actually netted nothing." The commission also found that Hoyle's true tax returns for 1988 and 1989 showed she had not received $2,000 a month for grooming dogs. The commission further...