Perkins v. Dist. of Col. Dept. of Emp. Serv., 83-939.

• Citation: 482 A.2d 401
• Case Date: October 09, 1984
• Court: Court of Appeals of Columbia District

482 A.2d 401 Shirley L. PERKINS, Petitioner,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent. No. 83-939. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued May 29, 1984. Decided October 9, 1984.

Page 402

Michael O. DeMouy, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Rozanne Look, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner.

N. Denise Wilson-Taylor, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Grace Lockett Rosner, Washington, D.C. entered an appearance, for respondent.

Before NEBEKER and TERRY, Associate Judges, and GALLAGHER, Associate Judge, Retired.

TERRY, Associate Judge:

Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Department of Employment Services ruling her ineligible for unemployment compensation. She contends that the Department's appeals examiner failed to make findings of fact on each material contested issue, see D.C.Code § 1-1509(e) (1981), that, alternatively, the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the examiner erred in admitting two documents into evidence. We find all of her arguments unpersuasive and affirm the decision of the Department.

I

Under the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, the appeals examiner's decision must contain findings of fact—"a concise statement of the conclusions upon each contested issue of fact"— and conclusions of law, both of which "shall be supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence." D.C.Code § 1-1509(e) (1981); see also 18 DCRR §§ 4609.2-4609.3 (1981). This court has refashioned these requirements into a three-part test for administrative decisions in contested cases: (1) the decision must state findings of fact on each material, contested factual issue; (2) those findings must be based on substantial evidence; and (3) the conclusions of law must follow rationally from the findings. E.g., Thomas v. District of Columbia Department of Labor, 409 A.2d 164, 169 (D.C. 1979); Citizens Association of Georgetown v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, 402 A.2d 36, 41-42 (D.C. 1979). While the appeals examiner in this case did not adhere to the formal distinction between findings and conclusions, see Citizens Association of Georgetown, supra, 402 A.2d at 42, he did make findings on the one material, contested issue of fact: whether or not petitioner resigned voluntarily.

When petitioner left her job in December 1982, anyone who left work "voluntarily without good cause connected with the work" had to work for at least four weeks and earn at least four times the amount of weekly benefits before becoming eligible for unemployment compensation. D.C. Code § 46-111(a) (1981), as amended by D.C.Law 4-147, § 2(h), 29 D.C.Reg. 3347, 3355-56 (expired 1983).¹ Petitioner enjoyed a rebuttable presumption that her departure from work was involuntary, 18 DCRR § 4612.3 (1981), but it could be overcome by evidence "that the leaving was voluntary in fact, within the ordinary meaning of the word `voluntary.'" 18 DCRR § 4612.2 (1981) (emphasis in original). A finding of voluntariness shifts the burden to the claimant to demonstrate that he or she left work for "good cause connected with the work." 18 DCRR § 4612.4 (1981). The test for whether the claimant's reason for leaving work meets this standard is whether "a reasonable and prudent person in the labor market" would have done the same. 18 DCRR § 4612.5 (1981).²

There is no dispute that petitioner resigned from her job. Nor did she contend before the appeals examiner that, if she resigned voluntarily, she did so for "good cause connected with the work." The only

Page 403

material issue of fact before the appeals examiner was whether petitioner's resignation was voluntary, see 18 DCRR § 4612.2 (1981), or whether it came in the face of "imminent discharge," 18 DCRR § 4612.8 (1981), which would make it involuntary. The...