RANDOLPH M. JAMES, PC v. Lemmons

Outcome

Excerpt

1. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits — misstatement in finding of fact The trial court did not err in an unemployment insurance benefits case by allegedly rewriting or editing an appeals referee's finding of fact in violation of N.C.G.S. § 96-15 (i), because: (1) the trial judge did not find additional or different facts, but simply corrected a misstatement of the word "all" by the appeals referee; and (2) the misstatement was of no consequence to the ultimate determination that claimant's discharge from employment was not due to substantial fault or misconduct in connection with the work. Page 510 2. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits — sufficiency of findings of fact The trial court did not err in an unemployment insurance benefits case by finding there was competent evidence to support the Employment Security Commission's findings that claimant's absenteeism from work was due to her medical condition, because: (1) contrary to petitioner employer's assertion, N.C.G.S. § 96-14 (1) does not apply to a case where claimant's employment was terminated by employer, and instead N.C.G.S. § 96-14 (2) applies; (2) there is no statutory requirement for medical testimony to support a medical basis for work absences, and a claimant's testimony has been held to be sufficient evidence; and (3) while the evidence supporting the appeals referee's findings is very sparse, it is still competent evidence. 3. Unemployment Compensation — insurance benefits — misconduct — excessive absenteeism — substantial fault — reasonable control The trial court did not err by concluding that respondent former employee was not disqualified from receiving unemployment insuran