Miller v. DeepGreen West Virginia, Inc., No. 11-0833
| Decision Date | 27 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No: 10-AA-62,No. 11-0833 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gary J. Miller, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Deepgreen West Virginia, Inc., Respondent Below, Respondent GARY J. MILLER, Petitioner, v. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, BOARD OF REVIEW; COMMISSIONER, WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA; and DEEPGREEN WEST VIRGINIA, INC., Employer, Respondents. |
Petitioner Gary J. Miller ("Mr. Miller"), by counsel, James M. Pierson, appeals from the Kanawha County Circuit Court's "Order" entered on January 3, 2011, upholding the decision of the Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia denying Mr. Miller unemployment compensation benefits. Respondent Deepgreen West Virginia, Inc.1 ("Deepgreen") appears by counsel, Charles R. Bailey.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Mr. Miller was employed by Deepgreen at a mine site in McDowell County, West Virginia, beginning on September 15, 2008. He earned a salary of $1,000 per week. Deepgreen also paid Mr. Miller $6,000 per month under a separate arrangement for his consulting services. Deepgreen states that Mr. Miller failed to report to work upon his return from vacation in early August 2009, after which it sent a letter to him dated August 17, 2009, expressing Deepgreen's position that he had abandoned his job. Conversely, Mr. Miller states that upon his return from vacation, Deepgreen instructed him not to return to the mine site.
Mr. Miller filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the Division of Unemployment Compensation of Workforce West Virginia.2 On November 25, 2009, a deputy issued an initial decision finding in favor of Mr. Miller based solely on evidence submitted by Mr.Miller. Deepgreen contested Mr. Miller's claim. Following a hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge ("Chief ALJ") issued a decision dated January 24, 2010, reversing the deputy's decision. The Chief ALJ found that Mr. Miller quit his job over a dispute concerning his consulting fees and expenses, that Deepgreen regularly paid Mr. Miller's $1,000 a week salary, and that Mr. Miller failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that he quit with good cause involving fault on the party of the employer.
Mr. Miller appealed the Chief ALJ's decision to the Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia ("Board"). A hearing was held before the Board and, in a decision dated March 10, 2010, the Board upheld the Chief ALJ's decision denying Mr. Miller unemployment compensation benefits. Mr. Miller appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Board's decision. The circuit court found, inter alia, that Mr. Miller had failed to show that the Chief ALJ's findings, as adopted by the Board, were "clearly wrong" and that there was adequate evidence to support the Board's decision.
" Syl. Pt. 1, May v. Chair and Members, Board of Review, 222 W.Va. 373, 664 S.E.2d 714 (2008). After careful consideration of the merits of the parties' arguments and a review of the appendix record, the Court finds no error in the circuit court's conclusions that there was adequate evidence to support the Board's decision and that Mr. Miller failed to show that the Chief ALJ's findings, as adopted by the Board, were "clearly wrong." Id. Accordingly, the Court incorporates and adopts the circuit court's "Order" entered on January 3, 2011, upholding the Board's decision and attaches a copy of the same hereto.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Pending before the Court is the Petition of Gary J. Miller ("Petitioner"), filed April 9, 2010, seeking reversal of the Board of Review's decision affirming the Chief Administrative Law Judge's ("Chief ALJ's") decision to deny Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits. Deepgreen West Virginia, Inc. ("Respondent") opposes the relief sought in the Petition and requests that the Petition be denied and the ruling of the Board of Review be affirmed. The parties have submitted memoranda of law in support of their respective positions to this Court. Upon consideration of the record before it, the Court is of the opinion that the Petition should be denied, and the ruling of the Board of Review be affirmed for the reasons further explained below.
1. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from September 15, 2008, through July 31, 2009, as an expediter and assistant superintendent at a coal mine, earning a salary of $1,000 per week/$4,000 per month.3
2. Petitioner's supervisor was Allen Robinson, Respondent's Director of Operations.
3. Respondent's corporate secretary was Michael Su, but "Mr. Su did not have operational authority or experience."
4. As the Chief ALJ explained, Petitioner "had somewhat of a unique hiring arrangement with [Respondent]."
5. Petitioner was paid a $1,000 per week salary by Respondent, and Petitioner had an oral agreement with a separate company, New Energy LLC/Mountaineer Coal LLC, for consulting services.
6. New Energy/Mountaineer Coal was proposing to manage the operations at Respondent's site in Pageton, West Virginia.
7. Petitioner did not have a final, written agreement for his consulting services with New Energy/Mountaineer Coal, and the two parties had a dispute regarding his consulting arrangement.
8. Respondent, however, agreed to pay Petitioner for consulting services while Petitioner and New Energy/Mountaineer Coal "worked out their respective differences."
9. In addition, Petitioner "offered [Respondent] the use of his operating account with Miller Logging, LLC, to order and pay for parts and materials."
10. Petitioner and New Energy/Mountaineer Coal were not able to work out their differences, "yet [Respondent] continued to pay [Petitioner's] consulting fee for a period of time."
11. As the Chief ALJ concluded, Petitioner "quit his job over a dispute concerning his consulting fees and expenses."
12. "Nevertheless," according to the Chief ALJ, "[Petitioner] regularly received his salary of $1,000 a week by the [Respondent]."
13. Accordingly,
[Petitioner] failed to present sufficient evidence [to the Chief ALJ] to support a finding that he quit with good involving fault on the part of the [Respondent]. The claimant continued to receive his salary by the [Respondent]. The dispute concerning consulting fees was the main reason [Petitioner] quit his job. [Petitioner] failed to work with Allen Robinson, Director of Operations, to resolve this conflict. [Respondent] was auditing those expenses and questioned some of the expenditures.
14. The Chief ALJ thus reversed the initial decision by the Deputy in this matter, which had awarded benefits to Petitioner,4 and concluded that Petitioner "left work voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of the employer."
15. Petitioner appealed the Chief ALJ's decision to the WorkForce West Virginia Board of Review.
16. Following a March 9, 2010, hearing, the Board of Review adopted the findings of fact by the Chief ALJ and affirmed her decision.
1. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 21A-6-3(l), an individual is disqualified for benefits if the individual "left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of the employer[.]"
2. Under the statutory scheme of West Virginia Code §§ 21A-7-1, et seq„ the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has observed that "the findings of fact of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security are entitled to substantialdeference unless a reviewing court believes the findings are clearly wrong." Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W. Va. 561, 565, 453 S.E.2d 395, 399 (1994); see also syl. pt 1, in part, Kisamore v. Rutledge, 166 W. Va. 675, 276 S.E.2d 821 (1981) ().
3. Petitioner's appeal is based on his contention that the Chief ALJ's findings of fact, as adopted by the Board of Review, are "erroneous."5
5. In short, Petitioner's argument is that the Chief ALJ failed to credit his characterization of the facts, but Petitioner provides no basis for this Court to find that the Chief ALJ's findings, as adopted by the Board of Review, are "clearly wrong."
6. As an...
To continue reading
Request your trial