Watson v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
ANGELA T. WATSON,
Appellant,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
APPEAL BOARD,
Appellee.
)
) C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Submitted: October 19, 2011
Decided: January 31, 2012
Angela T. Watson, Pro Se.
Katisha D. Fortune, Esq., Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney
for Appellee.
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s
Appeal From Decision of the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
AFFIRMED
VAUGHN, President Judge
Angela T. Watson v. UIAB
C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
January 31, 2012
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief and the record of the case, it
appears that:
1.
Angela T. Watson, the appellant, has filed this appeal from the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision denying her unemployment
benefits. The Board affirmed an Appeals Referee’s decision.
2.
On September 28, 2010, the appellant filed a claim for federal extended
unemployment benefits.1 On October 19, 2010, a Claims Deputy found that the
appellant was disabled from performing the duties required for her occupation, and
therefore was disqualified from any benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3326(h)(1)-(2).
The Claims Deputy’s decision was based on pay orders submitted for October 2,
October 9, and October 16, 2010 and medical documentation dated October 5, 2010
which indicated that the appellant was totally disabled from working in her
occupation from November 26, 2008 to the present. The medical documentation was
signed by Dr. Marilyn Barnes. In order to qualify for federal extended benefits, a
person must be able and available to work, and actively seeking work.
3.
An appeal was filed to an Appeals Referee. At the hearing before the
Appeals Referee, held on November 15, 2010, the appellant testified that she was on
medical leave for two years; that she had surgery on October 6, 2010; that her doctor
told her not to do anything for two weeks; and that she was currently able and
available and actively seeking work. She also testified that her primary doctor was
1
The appeals referee found that the claimant filed a claim for the federal extended
benefits effective September 26, 2010.
2
Angela T. Watson v. UIAB
C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
January 31, 2012
Dr. Tutse Tonwe and that he, not Dr. Barnes, should have been the one who furnished
the medical record.
4.
The Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy, relying upon 19 Del.
C. § 3326(h)(1)b & (2). Those provisions provide that a person is not eligible for
benefits for any week in which the person fails to actively engage in a systematic and
sustained effort to obtain work during such week, and that a person found to be
ineligible for this reason remains ineligible for every week thereafter until such
person has been employed in four subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive).
The Appeals Referee reasoned that the appellant failed to actively engage in an effort
to obtain work due to medical disability for the weeks ending October 2, October 9
and October 16, 2010, the latter being the second week after her October 6 surgery;
and that she was, therefore, under the aforementioned statutory provisions, ineligible
for benefits until she worked in each of four subsequent weeks, which had not
occurred.
5.
The appellant appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision to the Board. At
the Board hearing she testified that she is not currently on medical leave and that the
medical form filled out by Dr. Barnes was improperly completed. She submitted a
new medical certificate, signed by Dr. Tonwe on November 15, 2010, which
indicated that she was no longer totally disabled from performing the duties of her
occupation and could perform any work which did not expose her to mold.
6.
The Board affirmed the Appeals Referee. In doing so, the Board did not
rely upon 19 Del. C. § 3326(h)(1)b and (2). It relied upon 19 Del. C. § 3314(8),
which disqualifies a person from benefits if unemployment is due to a person’s
inability to work. The Board concluded that the appellant was unable to work in any
3
Angela T. Watson v. UIAB
C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
January 31, 2012
environment where she might be exposed to mold; that the appellant failed to produce
any evidence that she is qualified for any work where such a limitation would not be
an issue; and that she had, therefore, failed to meet her burden of proving that she was
currently able to work and available to work.
7.
The appellant states in her notice of appeal the following: “UIAB stated
that I have work limitations, but according to my family doctor I have no limitations
and I am not disabled.” In her opening brief the appellant contends that the document
issued by Dr. Barnes was improper and that the form completed by Dr. Tonwe is the
correct form with the correct information. She contends that Dr. Joan F. Coker was
the doctor who performed her tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy surgery on October
6, 2010, and per Dr. Coker’s instructions she was able to return to work within
fourteen days.2 The appellant contends that since her surgery, ten months ago, she
has continued to call in and fill out necessary forms on time; and that the information
on the form filled out by her doctor, Dr. Tonwe, should qualify her for unemployment
benefits.
8.
The scope of review of findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board is limited to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence
sufficient to support the Board’s findings.3 Substantial evidence is defined as “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
2
Dr. Barnes, the appellant contends, was only the pre-op doctor, and therefore the form
should not be considered the valid form.
3
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. of Dep’t of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 308-09
(Del. 1975).
4
Angela T. Watson v. UIAB
C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
January 31, 2012
conclusion.”4 On appeal, the court does not weigh evidence, determine questions of
credibility, or make its own factual findings.5 If there is substantial evidence and no
mistake of law, the Board’s decision must be affirmed.6
9.
The statutory basis relied upon by the Board was 19 Del. C. § 3314(8),
which provides that a claimant is disqualified from benefits under the following
circumstances:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(8) If it shall be determined by the Department that
total or partial unemployment is due to the
individual’s inability to work. Such disqualification
to terminate when the individual becomes able to
work and available for work as determined by a
doctor’s certificate and meets all other
requirements under this title.7
10.
Under Delaware law, an individual seeking unemployment benefits is
only considered to be “available for work” if “she is willing, able and ready to accept
employment which she has no good cause to refuse, that is, she is genuinely attached
to the labor market.”8 The determination of availability is subjective, and is measured
4
Majaya v. Sojourners’ Place, 2003 WL 21350542, at *4 (Del. Super. June 6, 2003).
5
Id.
6
City of Newark v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 802 A.2d 318, 323 (Del. Super.
7
19 Del. C. § 3314(8).
2002).
8
Briddell v. DART First State, 2002 WL 499437, at *1 (Del. Super. March 28, 2002)
(citing Petty v. University of Delaware, 450 A.2d 392, 395 (1982)).
5
Angela T. Watson v. UIAB
C.A. No. K11A-03-005 JTV
January 31, 2012
by the ability of an employee to secure work, with that skill, in an identifiable labor
market.9 In Morris v. U.I.A.B, this Court affirmed the Board’s conclusion that
“unemployment compensation is not health insurance and that its benefits are not
available to those who are unable to work due to illness.”10
11.
It is clear that the Board concluded that the qualification that the
appellant not work in an environment where she could be exposed to mold in Dr.
Tonwe’s medical certificate was significant, and that without evidence to explain
what work the appellant could perform where that qualification would not be an issue,
the appellant failed to establish that she was able to work and available for work
under 19 Del. C. § 3314(8). After having considered the evidence and the Board’s
decision, and applying the applicable standard of review, I find that the uncertainty
concerning the mold limitation is sufficient to create substantial evidence to support
the Board’s decision. I also find that the grounds relied upon by the Appeals Referee
independently supports the denial of benefits.
12.
Therefore, the Board’s decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
President Judge
cc:
Prothonotary
Order Distribution
File
9
10
Id.
340 A.2d 162, 163 (Del. Super. 1975).
6
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.
