Gwendolyn Crowley VS Susan Sonnier, Administrator Office of Unemployment Security, Curt Eysink; Administrator Louisiana Workforce Commission and Regional Extended Homecare
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1852 GWENDOLYN CROWLEY VERSUS w SUSAN SONNIER ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT SECURITY CURT EYSINK ADMINISTRATOR LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND REGIONAL EXTENDED HOMECARE 7udgment Rendered JUN 0 7 2013 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana 893 604 No Honorable Kay Bates Judge Presiding Gwendolyn Crowley Dupree Baton Rouge Louisiana Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person Danelle L Gilkes Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Louisiana Workforce Commission Rouge BEFORE Louisiana WHIPPLE C McCLENDON J AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ McCLENDON 7 Appellant seeks review of a district court judgment affirming a decision of the Louisiana Board of Review which concluded that appellank was disqualified for unemployment benefits based on her unavailability to work under LSA S R 3 1600 23 For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Gwendolyn Crowley was employed by Regional E Homecare as a ended licensed practical nurse to work in the homes of severely disabled children On her last assignment on April 6 2011 she had a disagreement with one of the patienYs grandparents and the grandparent asked Ms Crowley not to return The employer then attempted to place Ms Crowley on several other assignments but none were deemed acceptable by her On April 8 2011 Ms Crowley sought unemployment benefits with the Louisiana Workforce Commission The Louisiana Workforce Commission determined that Ms Crowley was ineligible for unemployment benefits because it determined that she was not available for work as required by LSA S R 3 1600 23 Ms Crowley appealed the Commission decision to an administrative law s judge AU Following a hearing the AU a the Commission decision rmed s reasoning as follows Evidence and testimony indicate that the claimant has changed her availability to such a degree that it is very difficult for the company to place her with an assignment The claimant knew what was involved with the assignments when she was hired Therefore the claimant is not available for employment with this employer and is not qualified for benefits Ms Crowley filed an appeal of the AU decision with the Louisiana Board of s Review The board adopting the AU findings of fact and conclusions of law s affirmed the AU decision s Subsequently Ms Crowley filed a petition for judicial review in district court The district court after hearing arguments and reviewing the record and briefs of the parties affirmed the board sdecision 2 Ms Crowley has appealed to this cou tasserting that the district court erred in concluding that she was disquaiified from receiving unemployment benefits DISCUSSION Judicial review of the board decision is governed by LSA 23 s S R 1634 Louisiana Revised Statutes 23 provides in part In any proceeding B 1634 under this Section the findings of the board of review as to the facts if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of fraud shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court shall be conflned to questions of law Courts may not disturb factual findings of the board when questions of weight and credibility are involved and when the conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence King v Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury 96 La 0934 App 1 Cir 2 691 So 194 196 Judicial review of the findings of the Board 97 14 2d does not permit weighing of evidence drawing of inferences re of evaluation evidence or substituting views of the court for that of the board as to the correctness of the facts presented Id Pertinent hereto an unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits only if the administrator finds among other things that the individual is able to work available for work and is conducting an active search for work S 3 R 1600 LSA 23 The individual shall be disqualified for benefits ithe f administrator finds that the individual has failed without good cause either to apply for available suitable work when so directed by the administrator or to accept suitable work when offered him S R LSA 3 1601 23 When determining whether offered work is suitable the following factors must be Louisiana Revised Statutes 23 provides i b 3 1600 For the purpose of this Section a claimant shall have satisfied the requirements of making an active search for work if he is pursuing a course of action to become reemployed as contained in his eligibility review and reemployment assistance plan approved by the administrator The reemployment assistance plan shall not contain factors which when judged on the basis of reasonableness for a similarly unemployed worker to follow would be contrary to the individual s interest taking into account the claimant qualifications for work the distance of s his residence from employing establishments his prior work history and current labor market conditions related to his normal and customary occupation 3 considered the degree of risk involved to his health safety and morais his physical fitness and prior training his experience his length of unemployment his prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation the distance of the available work from his residence and his highest level of educational attainment as evidenced by a formal degree LSA 23 S 3 R 1601 a The record reflects that the employer ofFered Ms Crowley opportunities to work with other patients The first offer involved Ms Crowley traveling with a client from Baton Rouge to New Orleans for a doctor appointment According s to the employer Ms Crowley turned down the one assignment indicating day that she had housework to do Ms Crowley avers that asking her to travel to work in New Orleans which would have been over a two drive to and from hour Baton Rouge for a one assignment as a fill is deemed unsuitable under day in S 3 R 1601 LSA 23 a Ms Crowley declined a second offer because according to the employer Ms Crowley wanted to work from 9 a until 2 p or 3 p each day and 00 m m m the ended job e past those hours The employer also indicated that Ms Crowley stated that given the prior incident in April 2011 wherein the grandfather told her to leave the patient home Ms Crowley did not want to s take any cases where a patienYs parents would be home According to the employer Ms Crowley stated that if the parents are home then they do not need nursing services and that she did not want somebody looking over her shoulder and watching to see what she was doing The employer explained that it could not accommodate Ms Crowley s conditions of employment stating Our cases are generally severely disabled children or adults that we get from Medicaid and they specified x number of hours per re week Generally anywhere from tweniy to eighty And eight four we then staff the cases from the pool of nurses that are available and typically we like to staff and the parents like to staff one nurse per day Unless iYs going to be an extended twelve hour day they really don want several people coming into the home And the t parents have a lot of control over these cases So we have to accommodate them when it comes to staffing And the difficulty was that Ms Crowley alleged hours precluded us from assigning s her a case that she would accept 4 The employer further explained that the limitation that she had that she t doesn want the parents in the home most of these parents are home with these severely disabled children So s that something we just can t accommodate On the other hand Ms Crowley asserts that she refused the second assignment because it involved a tracheotomy which she declined for lack of experience training and for the client safety Crowley avers that given her s lack of adequate training in this area she was not qualified for the referenced assignment The employer also indicated that it offered Ms Crowley a third opportunity but Ms Crowley declined because she had certain criteria of when and how she wanted to work Ms Crowley asserts however that only two offers had been made by the employer After a thorough review we conclude that the record contains sufficient and competent evidence to support the board finding that Ms Crowley was s unavailable for work Although Ms Crowley disputes the suitability of the jobs offered a reasonable interpretation of the record reflects that Ms Crowley refused suitable assignments because of personal issues and an unwillingness to work at the homes of clients whose parents would be present Because a reasonable basis exists in the record to support the board findings we cannot s substitute our views for that of the board regarding its findings of fact King 691 2d So at 196 See Accordingly we find no merit in Ms Crowley s assignment of error CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the August 23 2012 judgment of the district court is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Gwendolyn Crowley AFFIRMED 5
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.
