Todd M. Jack v. Virginia Employment Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner TODD M. JACK v. Record No. 1366-13-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 5, 2013 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY Clifford L. Athey, Jr., Judge (Todd M. Jack, pro se, on brief). No brief for appellee. Todd M. Jack appeals from a May 8, 2013 final order of the circuit court dismissing Jack s petition for judicial review of the Virginia Employment Commission s (VEC s) findings that fifty-two weeks had not passed since he was disqualified for benefits pursuant to Code § 60.2-618(4) and that he had not repaid benefits fraudulently obtained as required for benefits eligibility.1 The VEC filed a motion to dismiss Jack s appeal to this Court for Jack s failure to comply with numerous rules of this Court, and a motion for summary disposition pursuant to Rule 5A:27. Jack filed a response to that motion. We have reviewed the record, the opinions of the VEC deputy commissioner, the VEC appeals examiner, and the VEC, and the circuit court s May 8, 2013 final order, and find that this * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. On September 3, 2013, this Court summarily affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of Winchester to dismiss Jack s petition for review of the VEC s findings that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits and that he was liable to repay the VEC for unemployment compensation benefits he fraudulently obtained. See Jack v. Virginia Emp t Comm n, Record No. 1021-13-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2013). appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the VEC s opinion, as affirmed by the circuit court in its final order dismissing Jack s petition for judicial review of the VEC s decision. See In the matter of Jack, Comm n Decision 107750-C (Feb. 15, 2013), aff d, Jack v. Virginia Emp t Comm n, Case No. 13-206 (May 8, 2013). We summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed. -2-
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.
