Arcos v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY SUSSEX CO UNT Y COU RTHO USE JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 August 3, 2011 Jamie L. Arcos 23371 Springfield Road Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: Jamie L. Arcos v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board C.A. No. S10A-10-003 - ESB Letter Opinion Date Submitted: May 26, 2011 Dear Ms. Arcos: This is my decision on your appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board s denial of your claim for an extension of unemployment benefits. You were employed by a lawyer from August of 2008 until you lost your job in October of 2008. You filed a claim for unemployment benefits and started receiving them on October 12, 2008. You also obtained three extensions of your unemployment benefits. You filed a claim for another extension of unemployment benefits on December 6, 2009. The Board found that you were ineligible for unemployment benefits because you were not employed during the applicable base period used for determining eligibility for unemployment benefits. I have reversed the Board s decision because it used the wrong base period to determine your eligibility for unemployment benefits. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. On appeal from a decision of the Board, this Court is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support the Board s findings, and that such findings are free from legal error.1 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.2 The Board s findings are conclusive and will be affirmed if supported by competent evidence having probative value. 3 The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. 4 It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings.5 Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions.6 DISCUSSION You argue that the Board erred when it determined that you were ineligible for unemployment benefits because you had not been employed during the applicable base period. In order to be eligible for unemployment benefits an employee had to have been 1 Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board of the Dept. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975). 2 Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. 1986), app. dism., 515 A.2d 397 (Del. 1986). 3 Geegan v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 76 A.2d 116, 117 (Del. Super. 4 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 5 29 Del.C. § 10142(d). 6 Dallachiesa v. General Motors Corp., 140 A.2d 137 (Del. Super. 1958). 1950). 2 employed during the base period preceding the employee s claim. The base period is defined as the first 4 of the last 5 completed calender quarters immediately preceding the first day of the individual s benefit year. 7 Benefit year means the 1-year period beginning with the first day of the first week with respect to which the individual first files a valid claim for benefits. 8 The Board found that the first day of your benefit year was December 6, 2009, the day you filed for an extension of unemployment benefits. Using December 6, 2009 as the start of your benefit year, the Board found that your base period was from December of 2008 to December of 2009. Since you were not employed during this period of time, the Board found that you were ineligible for unemployment benefits. However, the Board incorrectly calculated your base period. The Board s base period actually represents the last 4 quarters, not the first 4 of the last 5 completed quarters immediately preceding your benefit year. According to the Division of Unemployment Insurance s website, the graphic they have displayed would calculate your base period as July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, not December of 2008 through December of 2009 (see attachment). If the Board had used this base period, then you arguably would have been eligible for unemployment benefits because you were employed during this period of time. Since the Board did not calculate the base period in accordance with the applicable law, its decision must be reversed. 7 19 Del.C. § 3302(2). 8 Cite 3 CONCLUSION The Board s decision denying your claim for an extension of unemployment benefits is reversed9 and the matter is remanded to the Board for a hearing consistent with this opinion to determine if you are entitled to unemployment benefits using the correct base period. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /S/ E. Scott Bradley E. Scott Bradley oc: cc: Prothonotary s Office Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 9 The Board also found that you were not self-employed. Since this finding was not challenged on appeal, I have not reversed it. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.