The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-2017-27
EMMANUEL QUAQUA,
Petitioner
DECISION AND ORDER
V.
MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMMISSION,
Respondent
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court on an appeal by Emmanuel Quaqua
(Claimant) from the decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission
(Commission) which dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the Petitioner's appeal of
an administrative Hearing Officer's ruling denying him unemployment
compensation benefits on the ground that he refused to accept an offer of suitable
employment. This appeal has been brought in accordance with 26 M.R.S. § 1194
(a), 5 M.R.S. §§ 1101-1108 (Administrative Procedure Act), and M.R.Civ.P. SOC.
THE DECISIONS BELOW
In a Deputy's decision dated February 8, 2017, the Petitioner was awarded
benefits from December 11, 2016. 1 The employer (Goodall Landscaping, Inc.)
1
In the Deputy's Decision, it is asserted that the employer did not participate in
the Telephone Fact Finding Interview. (Record, hereinafter "R," at 34). At the
subsequent hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer, the employer
filed a timely appeal. A telephone hearing was scheduled for March 6, 201 7 at
2:00 p.m. (R. at 32). The notice of hearing was provided to both the Petitioner and
the employer and listed the telephone contact numbers for each of them. The
notice informed the parties that they would be called "within 15 minutes of the
scheduled hearing time," and that if the correct telephone number was not listed,
"please inform us of your correct number by calling . . . . at least, ONE
WORKING DAY PRIOR TO the time of your hearing." (Id.) (emphasis in
original). The notice also expressly stated that the "unavailability of a party at the
time the Hearing Officer places a call to the party's telephone number," would be
treated as "a failure to appear and may result in dismissal of the appeal." (Id.)
Finally, the notice, in bold letters, stated: "Failure to appear at the hearing may
result in dismissal of the appeal, denial of benefits, increased unemployment
insurance taxes and loss of any right of further legal review." (Id.)
On the day and at the time scheduled for the hearing, (March 6, 2017 at 2:00
p. m.), the Hearing Officer called both the employer and the Petitioner. The
Petitioner did not answer, but the following message was received by the Hearing
Officer: "I'm sorry, but the person you called has a voicemail that has not been set
up yet. Goodbye." (R. at 17). Thereafter, the hearing continued with the
employer's representative providing testimony. The Petitioner did not call in to the
hearing and the evidence was closed and the hearing concluded at 2:21 p. m. (R. at
30).
In a decision dated and mailed on March 10, 2017, the Hearing Officer
found that the Petitioner had refused to accept an offer of suitable work within the
meaning of 26 M.R.S. §1193(3) and was, therefore, disqualified from benefits. (R.
at 11 ). The Hearing Officer found that the Petitioner had been erroneously
disputed this and claimed that she had called the Deputy and left a voice message
for him but he did not return her call. (R. at 27).
2
awarded benefits in the amount of $3,432.00 that constituted an overpayment,
"which must be repaid." (R. at 12).
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Commission. (R. at 8). In his
statement of reasons for the appeal, he wrote:
I talked to someone from the State that called from a career
center that day but never the deputy for the appeals hearing. I would
very much like to dispute. some 'facts' from my former employer.
(R. at 8).
In a Decision dated April 28, 2017, the Unemployment Insurance
Commission dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider it because the Petitioner had failed to appear at the telephone hearing held
on March 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., and he had not shown "good cause" for his failure
to appear. (R. at 1-5).
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal to this court on May 26, 2017. Briefing
was completed on September 18, 2017. The State waived oral argument. The
Petitioner could not be reached to determine his position regarding oral argument.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Law Court has recently reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of
administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Passadumkeag
Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Envtl. Prat., 2014 J'v1E 116, ,r 12, 102 A.3d 1181
(quoting Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prat., 2010 ME 18, ,r 12, 989
A.2d 1128). The court is not permitted to overturn an agency's decision "unless it:
violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is
procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion;
is affected by bias or error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record."
Kroger v Departmental of Environmental Protection, 2005 ME. 50, ,r 7, 870 A.2d
566. The party seeking to vacate a state agency decision has the burden of
3
persuasion on appeal. Anderson v Maine Public Employees Retirement System,
2009 ME. 134, -if 3, 985 A.2d 501.
This court must examine "the entire record to determine whether, on the
basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and
reasonably find the facts as it did." Friends of Lincoln Lake v Board of
Environmental Protection, 2001 ME. 18 -if13 , 989 A. 2d 1128. In the context of the
Claimant's appeal from the decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission, this court reviews the administrative record to determine if the
Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported by "substantial evidence" and
whether it correctly applied the law to the facts. McPherson v Maine
Unemployment Insurance Commission, 1998 ME. 177, -i[6, 714 A.2d 818. The
court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact.
5 M.R.S. § 11007(3). Determinations of the believability or credibility of the
witnesses and evidence, supported by substantial evidence on the record, should
not be disturbed by this court. Cotton v Maine Employment Security Commission,
431 A. 2d 637, 640 (Me. 1981).
In this case, the issue before the court is whether the Commission committed
an error of law in dismissing the appeal for lack ofjurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 26 M.R.S. §1194(3), a claimant may appeal to the Commission
from a Hearing Officer's decision "provided that the appealing party appeared at
the hearing and was given notice of the effect of the failure to appear in writing
prior to the hearing." The Commission is authorized to hear an appeal
notwithstanding the failure of a party to appear at an administrative hearing, if the
claimant shows good cause for the non-appearance. If the Commission finds good
cause, it may reach the "underlying substantive issues." Rules Governing the
4
Administration of the Employment Security Law, Ch. 5, §l(B)(l)(c). Conversely,
if the Commission determines that good cause did not exist for the party's non
appearance, "no evidence will be taken on the substantive issues, which will have
been rendered moot." Ch. 5, § l(B)(l)(d).
Good cause is defmed as follows:
For the purpose of the Employment Security Law and
regulations, the Commission determines that 'good cause' shall be
when the unemployed individual is ill, or when illness of the
unemployed individual's spouse or children, or parents, or
stepparents, brothers or sisters, relatives who have been acting in the
capacity of a parent of either the claimant or spouse, require his or her
presence; or he or she is in attendance at a funeral of such relative; or
required by religious conviction to observe a religious holiday; or
required by law to perform either a military or civil duty; or other
cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Incarceration as a result
of a conviction for a felony or misdemeanor is excluded from the
definition of' good cause."
Ch. 1.l(T).
The Commission found that the Petitioner was given written notice, prior to
the hearing, of the potential consequences of failing to appear at the administrative
hearing. It also found that the Petitioner's explanation for his non-appearance was
not sufficient to constitute "good cause."
The court agrees that the Commission's findings and conclusions are
supported by the facts and evidence in the record, and was in conformance with the
statutes and rules governing the Employment Security Law.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the decision of the Maine
Unemployment Insurance Commission finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear
the Petitioner's appeal is affirmed and the Petitioner Rule 80C appeal to this court
is DENIED.
5
The clerk is directed to incorporate this Order by reference in the docket in
accordance with M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
DATED: January 5, 2018.
Justice, Maine Superior Court
6