McCracken v. Fancy

• Decision Date: 28 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. 12678,12678
• Citation: 98 Nev. 30,639 P.2d 552
• Parties: Larry O. McCRACKEN, Executive Director State of Nevada Employment Security Department, Board of Review of State of Nevada Employment Security Department and Strobeck and Associates, Inc., Appellants, v. Reta B. FANCY, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 552

639 P.2d 552

98 Nev. 30

Larry O. McCRACKEN, Executive Director State of Nevada Employment Security Department, Board of Review of State of Nevada Employment Security Department and Strobeck and Associates, Inc., Appellants, v. Reta B. FANCY, Respondent.

No. 12678.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Jan. 28, 1982.

John A. Flangas, Reno, for appellants.

Reta B. Fancy, in pro. per.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a district court order reversing a decision of the appeals tribunal of the Nevada Employment Security Department (NESD). Because we find that the district court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the administrative department, we reverse.

On October 8, 1979, respondent Reta B. Fancy voluntarily terminated her employment as secretary/bookkeeper for a Las Vegas company. Thereafter, she applied for unemployment compensation benefits. After receiving one check for $67.00, Fancy was informed that she would receive no further benefits and that she had to return the previously issued check for $67.00. Appellant Larry O. McCracken, Executive Director of the NESD, had determined that Fancy had terminated her employment voluntarily without good cause and therefore did not qualify for unemployment benefits. See NRS 612.380.

Fancy appealed to the NESD's appeals tribunal. A hearing was held in Long Beach, California, where Fancy had moved, and the tape of the hearing was transmitted to the appeals tribunal for its decision. Fancy was the only witness at the hearing. She also introduced into evidence certain letters and documents relating to her unsuccessful attempt to secure unemployment benefits. After reviewing the evidence, the appeals referee denied Fancy's claim and held her liable for the overpayment of $67.00. See NRS 612.365.

Fancy then appealed to the NESD's board of review. By a letter dated January 31, 1980, the board of review declined to review her appeal. See NRS 612.515(1). Fancy sought judicial review of the administrative decision against her. On April 25, 1980, the district court reversed the appeals tribunal's decision and ordered that Fancy receive unemployment compensation. The district court's order stated no reason for the reversal. The NESD has appealed.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by reversing the appeals referee's decision that Fancy had terminated her employment voluntarily without good cause and therefore was ineligible for unemployment compensation. In reviewing an administrative board's decision, this court, like the district court, is limited to the record below and to the determination of whether the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Turk v. Nevada State Prison, 94 Nev. 101, 575 P.2d 599 (1978); Lellis v. Archie, 89 Nev. 550, 516 P.2d 469 (1973); Barnum v. Williams, 84 Nev. 37, 436 P.2d 219 (1968). The question is whether the board's decision was based on substantial evidence; neither this court, nor the district court, may substitute its judgment for the administrator's determination. Varela v. City of Reno Civil Serv., 97 Nev. 575, 635 P.2d 577 (1981); No. Las Vegas v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 83 Nev. 278, 429 P.2d 66 (1967).

The relevant statutory provision is former NRS 612.380, ¹ which provided:

A person is ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has voluntarily left his last or next to last employment without good cause, if so found by the executive director, and until he earns remuneration in covered employment equal to or exceeding his weekly benefit amount in each of 10 weeks. (Emphasis added.)

Despite the fact that Fancy presented all the evidence at the administrative hearing, the evidence was conflicting at best. She testified that she had been misled about the nature of the work; that although hired as a secretary/bookkeeper, 95% of her work involved accounting; and that she was losing her secretarial skills...