Christy Puckett v. Director, Employment Security Department and Families, Inc. of Jonesboro

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE

DIVISION III

E01-275

May 1, 2002

CHRISTY PUCKETT AN APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS

APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 01-AT-7020]

V.

DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT

SECURITY DEPARTMENT, and

FAMILIES, INC. OF JONESBORO

APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED

Christy Puckett appeals a Board of Review (Board) decision that denied her employment benefits based on a finding that Puckett voluntarily and, without good cause connected with the work left her employment with Families, Inc., of Jonesboro. She contends that substantial evidence did not exist to support the Board's decision. We agree with appellant and hold that there is no evidence in the record which reasonably supports an inference that appellant voluntarily ended her employment. Consequently, we reverse and remand.

After working for appellee approximately two months as a case manager, appellant requested a transfer to Izard County. Appellee consented and told appellant that it needed someone in Izard or Sharp County because the case manager in Sharp County had requesteda reduction in her work load and because the case manager in Izard County was on maternity leave. Within the following week, appellant asked members of management on at least two occasions how many clients she would have, as she was paid by the hour, and the number of clients affected the amount she was paid. Because appellant was not given specifics concerning the number of cases she would have, she requested that appellee withdraw her transfer request and allow her to remain in Clay County. However, appellee refused and told appellant that her position in Clay County had been filled. Because of her refusal to accept the transfer, appellee no longer had a position for appellant and discharged her.

The Employment Security Department (Department) determined that appellant was discharged from her employment with appellee for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work. The Arkansas Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Department's determination, and appellee appealed the decision to the Board. Following its review, the Board found that appellant voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work, left her last work. This appeal followed.

Administrative agencies are similar to a jury in that an administrative agency is free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of a witness. See Thomas v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 319 Ark. 782, 894 S.W.2d 584 (1995). Findings of the Board are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. See Perdrix-Wang v. Director Emp. Sec. Dep't, 42 Ark. App. 218, 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993). We consider evidence to be substantial when reasonable minds might accept the evidence as adequate to support the Board's determination. See id. We view all evidence, including reasonable inferences, in a light most favorable to thefindings of the Board. See id. Because we do not substitute our opinion for that of the Board, our review is limited to a determination as to whether the Board could have reasonably reached its conclusion based on the evidence before it. See id. Reversal is required when we determine that substantial evidence does not support the conclusion reached by the Board. See Carraro v. Director, 54 Ark. App. 210, 924 S.W.2d 819 (1996). Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-513 (Supp. 2001) provides that an individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when the Board determines that the individual voluntarily left her employment and without good cause connected to the work.

Although the Board found that appellant voluntarily left her last employment, the record is devoid of evidence that substantiates this finding. Rather, the record clearly demonstrates that appellant was terminated after she canceled plans to transfer from Clay County. Nothing in the record supports any other reasonable inference. Therefore, we hold that appellant was discharged from her last work for a reason that did not constitute misconduct in connection with the work. We reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree.