Judge v. DEPT. OF EMP., UNEMPLOYMENT INS.
| Decision Date | 15 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-121.,01-121. |
| Parties | Robert E. JUDGE, Appellant (Petitioner), v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Donald L. Painter of Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Hoke MacMillan, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and Joe Scott, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN1, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellant, Robert E. Judge (Judge), challenges a determination made by the Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission), that disqualified him from receipt of benefits for a 52-week period because he knowingly filed a claim that contained a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact.
[¶ 2] We will affirm.
[¶ 3] Judge broaches this issue:
Whether, contrary to Wyo. Stat. § 27-3-311(e), [Judge] knowingly filed a claim for benefits which contained a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact as determined by the [Commission].
The Commission expresses the issue somewhat differently:
Whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission's findings that Robert E. Judge worked and received pay during weeks for which he knowingly filed claims representing that he had not, are supported by substantial evidence.
[¶ 4] On June 20, 2000, Judge filed a claim with the Unemployment Insurance Division (Division) for unemployment compensation benefits that covered the weeks of June 4-10, 2000, and June 11-17, 2000. In that application,2 he answered the questions asked of him as follows:
1. Did you work during this week? If yes, NO complete section 1. 2. Were you able and available for work ... ? YES 3. Did you actively seek work? .... YES 4. Did you refuse any job offers or job referrals NO during this week? If YES, complete section 3 5. Have you returned to work full-time? That NO is, did you work more than 35 hours? If YES complete section 4. 6. Did you receive holiday, vacation, severance, NO self-employment, social security, retirement or any other type of pay this week? If YES complete section 2.
Each claim form concludes with the following admonition above the signature line:
[¶ 5] During the time period for which these claims were submitted, Judge was "working"3 for High Mountain Welding and Manufacturing (HMWM). The explanation Judge used to justify his answers was that he was not "working for wages"4 during the time period at issue in this case; rather, he had merely "donated" his time to a corporation he owned, and that he had "rented" welding equipment to HMWM, which he then operated for "free." Judge also asserted that he was always available for "work," because HMWM understood that if Judge found other "work," he would quit providing services to HMWM. Payments for the "work" Judge performed for HMWM were made to Sheridan Corporation, a corporation owned and operated by Judge and his wife but which had no employees. Judge was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for a 52-week period beginning June 4, 2000, on the basis that his claim contained a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact.5
[¶ 6] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-311(e) (LexisNexis 2001)6 provides:
(e) Any person who knowingly files a claim for benefits which contains a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact, as determined by the department, shall be disqualified from receiving benefits for a fifty-two (52) week period beginning the week in which the false statement or misrepresentation was made or the date that notice of the overpayment determination or decision is mailed to the person who filed the claim.
[¶ 7] Judge indicated to the Division that he wanted to appeal his disqualification from receiving benefits.7 A hearing on the appeal was held on December 26, 2000. It was agreed that all parties had notice of the hearing.8 The only issue that was to be considered at the hearing was "whether or not Mr. Robert Judge knowingly filed a claim for benefits which contained a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact." The proceedings before the Division's Appeals Examiner in this matter were informal, and the procedures used were well explained to all participants. It is clear that the burden of proof was on the Division.
[¶ 8] It was evident from the outset of the hearing that the Division had received information from HMWM that Judge had worked for it during the period of time for which he claimed unemployment benefits. Steve Badgett (Badgett), the owner of HMWM, testified at the hearing that Judge worked for him during that time period. Badgett also testified that he did not rent equipment from Judge and that, although Judge asked that the remuneration paid to him be designated as "equipment rental," he refused to do that after Badgett's bookkeeper told him he had to designate it as "contract labor." Further, Badgett's testimony indicated that Judge was paid by the hour for his work, and Badgett viewed the payments he made to Judge as wages. However, Badgett had to concede that the time cards showing the numbers of hours Judge worked had the name Sheridan Corporation on them and the notation, "equipment rental." Judge did not fill out a W-4 for his employment, nor was he covered by worker's compensation or unemployment compensation.
[¶ 9] Judge testified that he did not work for Badgett for wages, but that he donated his working time to his corporation and only charged Badgett for the rental value of the equipment used in performing the work (he emphasized that, although his corporation rented the equipment to Badgett, no one was permitted to operate it except Judge himself). Judge contended that Badgett was confused because "he doesn't realize we are two different entities." Judge testified that he filed for unemployment for the time he worked for Badgett because he was "donating" his time and, thus, he "wasn't employed." Judge was asked if he understood the reporting requirements pertinent to unemployment insurance claims. He answered thus:
[¶ 10] On January 8, 2001, the Appeals Examiner issued his findings that Judge had worked during the relevant time period and was aware of his obligation to provide "true information" when submitting his claim for benefits. The Examiner also found that Judge had worked and earned wages and, thus, had submitted a claim containing a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact.
[¶ 11] Judge was entitled to appeal the above-described determination to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and he did so. 3 Weil's Code of Wyoming Rules, Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Division, Chapter 30, Section 7, 025 050 001-12 (2001). On March 21, 2001, the Commission affirmed Judge's disqualification from benefits. Judge then filed a petition for review in the district court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12. By order entered on June 1, 2001, the matter was certified to this Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b)(1),(3), and (6).9
[¶ 12] In synthesizing the standard of review for a case such as this, we must look beyond the usual formula found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001), though that statute is a part of the mix. First, we note the standard of review we articulated in Wyoming Department of Employment v. Porter, 986 P.2d 148, 150 (Wyo.1999):
To continue reading
Request your trial