C.E. v. Review Board (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CATRINA F. ELLIOTT Fort Wayne, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ELIZABETH ROGERS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Jun 18 2010, 10:25 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA C.E., Appellant-Defendant, vs. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 93A02-0906-EX-526 APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT The Honorable Steven F. Bier, Chairperson Cause No. 09-R-1521 June 18, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Appellant-petitioner C.E. appeals the decision of Indiana Unemployment Insurance Review Board ( Review Board ) affirming the findings and conclusions of an Administrative Law Judge, who denied C.E. s application for unemployment benefits after finding that C.E. had voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History C.E. was employed with Verizon North, Inc. for about thirty years ending on Friday, April 4, 2008. During this time, C.E. s elderly mother became ill and required C.E. s assistance at home. C.E. decided to care for her mother and retired from Verizon North, Inc. C.E. filed for unemployment benefits. On November 18, 2008, a claims deputy of the Department of Workforce Development determined that C.E. had voluntarily left her employment without good cause in connection with her work and was not entitled to unemployment benefits. Appellant s App. p. 22. C.E. filed an appeal from this determination. A telephone hearing was held on March 23, 2009. On April 3, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) affirmed the prior determination. On April 17, 2009, C.E. filed an appeal with the Review Board. On May 13, 2009, the Review Board affirmed the ALJ s decision. This appeal ensued on June 3, 2009, when C.E. appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Discussion and Decision The Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that any decision of the Review Board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. Ind. Code § 222 4-17-12(a) (2005). Review Board decisions may, however, be challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts. Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(f) (2005). Under this standard, we review determinations of specific or basic underlying facts, conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions. McClain v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1317 (Ind. 1998). When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our task is to determine whether the decision is reasonable in light of its findings. Abdirizak v. Review Bd. of the Dep t. of Workforce Dev., 826 N.E.2d 148, 150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Our review of the Review Board s findings is subject to a substantial evidence standard of review. Id. In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board s findings. Id. Further, we will reverse the decision only if there is no substantial evidence to support the Review Board s findings. Id. Unfortunately, C.E. seems to have depended upon internet websites for her legal advice. C.E. s claim relies solely upon her belief that a statute or law entitled the Boren Act allowed her to voluntarily leave her employment with Verizon North, Inc. to care for her elderly mother and still receive unemployment benefits.1 However, C.E. failed to provide any case law or statutory support for that portion of her claim founded upon the 1 We have found no mention of Boren Act of 1987 in either Indiana or federal statutes. The only reference to the Boren Act appears to be the Epinions.com article provided by C.E. as the basis for her unemployment claim. We note that relying solely on any single, non-attorney source for legal advice, especially on the internet, can lead to an adverse outcome such as the one in this case. 3 Boren Act, as well as for the portion of her claim alleging that the Review Board lacked sufficient evidence to support its decision. C.E. has therefore waived this issue for lack of a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a); Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369, 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) ( A party generally waives any issue for which it fails to develop a cogent argument or support with adequate citation to authority and portions of the record. ), trans. denied 804 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. 2003). Because C.E. has failed to establish that the Review Board lacked sufficient evidence to support its decision, we affirm the Review Board s decision. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur. 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.