Wingo v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY PATRICIA WINGO, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD and CECIL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Appellees. : : : : : : : : : : : C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW Submitted: December 21, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2013 ORDER Upon the Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Affirmed. Patricia Wingo, pro se William A. Crawford, Esquire of Franklin & Prokopik, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Cecil County Public Schools. WITHAM, R.J. Patricia Wingo v. Cecil County Public Schools & UIAB C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW February 22, 2013 This is a pro se appeal by Claimant Patricia Wingo ( Appellant ) from a May 10, 2012 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ( the Board or UIAB ). The Board affirmed a determination by an Appeals Referee that Appellant was disqualified to receive unemployment benefits because she is unable and unavailable to work as required by 19 Del. C. § 3315(3). For the reasons stated herein, the UIAB s decision is AFFIRMED. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background Appellant has been employed by Cecil County Public Schools ( the School District ) as a substitute teacher since September 2009. The School District employs an automated telephone system to notify substitute teachers that they are needed to teach on a given day at any one of the School District s 30 schools. The School District presented evidence that Appellant was offered work on a total of 18 days during the periods of October 29, 2011, to December 24, 2011, and January 7, 2012, to January 14, 2012. At a hearing before the UIAB on April 25, 2012, the School District presented testimony that Appellant either refused work, did not respond to the automated call, or could not be reached on each of the 18 days. Appellant attributes her unavailability to a number of personal limitations. She testified at the same hearing that she can only accept teaching assignments if they are at the school her daughter attends on account that she does not have a reliable child care provider. She also offered medical records that show that she suffers from chronic pain syndrome that inflicts Appellant with migraine headaches, and lower back and neck pain. 2 Patricia Wingo v. Cecil County Public Schools & UIAB C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW February 22, 2013 Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits on January 8, 2012. On February 3, 2012, a Claims Deputy denied Appellant s claim on the grounds that, by restricting her schedule and availability so severely, Appellant was not able and available for work as required by 19 Del. C. § 3315(3). Appellant appealed the Claims Deputy s decision on February 6, 2012. The Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy s decision on March 5, 2012, concluding that Appellant s unavailability rendered her ineligible for the receipt of benefits. Appellant then timely a notice of appeal of the Referee s decision. In her request for an appeal, the Appellant provided records from her treating physician documenting her chronic medical condition. On April 25, 2012, the Board heard the appeal. Appellant testified that her availability is constrained by her medical condition and the lack of reliable child care for her daughter. Appellant s mother, Sandra Wingo, testified that although she tries to help out when she can, she is only available sporadically to watch her granddaughter while her daughter is at work. After it received testimony and documentary evidence from the Appellant, the Board concluded that the information provided by the Appellant established that she is unable to accept substitute teaching positions at district schools other than the one her daughter attends unless she has sufficient advance notice to procure a babysitter, such as her mother. Finding her availability limited, the Board affirmed the Referee s decision, and denied benefits to the Appellant. The Appellant, acting pro se, then timely filed an appeal of the Board s decision to this Court for review. 3 Patricia Wingo v. Cecil County Public Schools & UIAB C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW February 22, 2013 Standard of Review This Court s review of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record to support the Board s findings, and that such findings are free from legal error.1 Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that 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 An appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.4 Discussion The central issue on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board s findings that Appellant is unable and unavailable to work as required by 19 Del. C. 3315(3) ( Section 3315(3) ). Section 3315 of Title 19 of the Delaware Code provides, in pertinent part, that [a]n unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the Department [of Labor] finds that the individual ... is able to work and is available to work and is 1 Employment Ins. Appeals Bd. of the Dep t of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975); Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 287 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971). 2 Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986). 3 Geegan v. Unemployment Comp. Comm n, 76 A.2d 116, 117 (Del. Super. Ct. 1950). 4 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 4 Patricia Wingo v. Cecil County Public Schools & UIAB C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW February 22, 2013 actively seeking work. 5 A claimant is deemed available for work within the meaning of this statute only to the extent that she is willing, able and ready to accept employment which she has no good cause to refuse. 6 A claimant may not seek unemployment benefits while making his or her availability improperly conditional.7 The Board, like the Referee and the Claims Deputy before it, found that, by unduly restricting her availability, the Appellant did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 3315(3). Although the Court is sympathetic to Appellant s plight, that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. The record supports the Board s decision that Appellant is unable to, and unavailable for, work for the relevant weeks and is thus ineligible for benefits per Section 3315(3). In her opening brief, Appellant merely rehashes the very arguments that were rejected by the Board. The evidence before the Board as that Claimant declined jobs when she was contacted by the School District s automatic dialer to fill available jobs in the weeks relevant to her claim. Appellant testified that, because of child care constraints, she is unable to accept teaching positions at a school other than the one where her daughter attends. She also testified that she is sometimes too sick to work due to the sudden onset of migraine headaches and other manifestations of her chronic medical condition. In light of the wealth of evidence that Appellant s 5 19 Del. C. § 3315(3). 6 Petty v. Univ. of Del., 450 A.2d 392, 395 (Del. 1982) (internal citations omitted). 7 Barbour v. UIAB, 1990 WL 199514, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990) (citing In re Platt, 292 A.2d 822, 825 (1972)). 5 Patricia Wingo v. Cecil County Public Schools & UIAB C.A. No. K12A-05-002 WLW February 22, 2013 availability was severely limited, the Court is satisfied that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the Board s decision that Appellant is unable and unavailable for work within the meaning of 19 Del. C. § 3315(3), and that the decision is free from legal error. Conclusion In light of the substantial evidence in support of the UIAB s decision, as well as the absences of any error of law or abuse of discretion, the decision of the UIAB must be, and is, hereby AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge WLW/dmh 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.