I N TH E S UP ERI O R CO URT O F TH E S TATE O F DELAW ARE

WA L T E R ROB B I NS

, :

:

A ppel l an t, : C. A

. No. K 15A

- 07- 001 J J C

v

. : I n an d F or K en t Cou n ty

:

UNE M P L OYM E

NT I NS URA

NCE :

A P P E A L S B OA RD, A

ND :

A M A Z O N. COM .DE DC I NC. :

:

A ppel l ees

. :

Upon Con s ider ation of Appellan t ’ s Appeal f

r om th e Un em

p loym en t I

n s u r an ce

Appeal Boar d

- AF F I RM ED

O RDER

AND NO W TO W I T

, th i s 25 t h d ay of J an u ar y

, 2016, u pon con s i der ati on of t

h e

r ecor d an d t

h e br i ef i n g by t h e par ti es

, I T AP PEARS TH AT :

1. B ef or e th e Cou

r t i s th e pr o s e appeal of A

ppel l an t W al ter Robbi n s ( h er ei n af ter

“ A ppel l an t”) f r om th e deci s i on of th e Un em p l oy m en t I n s u r an ce A ppeal s B oar d

( h er ei n af t er “ th e B oar d” or “ th e U I A B ”)

. Robbi n s sou g h t u n em pl oy m en t com pen s ati on

f r om h i s em

pl oy er A m azon

. com

. DE DC I n c. ( h er ei n af ter “ A m azon ”) af

ter ter m i n ati on

of h i s em pl oy m en t on Decem

ber 16, 2014. A f

ter r ev i ew of th e r ecor d an d th e par ti es ’

s u bm i s s i on s

, th e Cou

r t A f f i r m s t h e deci s i on of

th e UI A B

.

2. T h e ev i den ce pr es en ted at th e v ar i o u s l ev el s th r ou g h th e adm

i n i s tr ati v e

pr oces s i s n ot i n di s p u

te. Nam el y

, Robbi n s was i n ju r ed i n an au

tom obi l e acci den

t onNov em

b er 11, 2014, an d r es tr i cted f r om wor k by a doctor ’ s n ote th

r ou g h Decem

ber 11,

2014. Robbi n s r etu

r n ed t o w o r k o n Decem

b er 16, 2014. On th at day

, Robbi n s

deter m i n ed h e was n ot abl e to per f o r m his wor

k tas ks s o h e l ef

t. H e pr ov i ded n o

doctor ’ s n ote ex cu s i n g h i m f r om wor k f r om A m azon af

ter t h e on e ex cu si n g h i m th

r ou g h

Decem ber 11, 2014.

3. B as ed on t

h i s ev i den ce, th e Cl ai m s Depu ty f ou n d th at Robbi n s v ol

u n t ar i l y qu i t

wi th ou t g ood cau s e wh i ch w as af f i r m ed by th e A

ppeal s Ref

er ee. F i n al l y

, af

ter a M ay

13, 2015 h ear i n g

, th e UI A B af f i r m ed th e Ref

er ee’ s deci s i o n

, h ol di n g th at wh en Robbi n s

v ol u n tar i l y l ef t h i s em pl o y m en t, h e was d i s q u a li f

i ed f r om r ecei p t of u

n em pl oy m en t

ben ef i ts p ur s ua n t t o 19 Del. C. § 3314( 1)

. Robbi n s f i l ed a ti m el y appeal to S u per i or

Cou r t pu r s u an t t o 19 Del. C. § 3323.

4. P u r s u an t to 1 9 Del. C

. § 3323( a)

, th e S u per i or Cou

r t’ s ju r i s di cti on i s l i m

i ted

to a r ev i ew f

or er r or s of l aw, tog eth er wi th a l i m i ted f actu al r ev i ew. Nam el y

, th e r ev i ew

i s “ l i m i ted to th e qu es ti on of wh eth er th er e i s s u b s tan ti al ev i den ce i n th e r ecor d to

s u ppor t th e B oar d’ s f

ind ings an d wh eth er s u ch f i n di n g s ar e f

r ee f r om l eg al er

r or

. I n

s u ch an appeal

, th i s Cou r t does n ot wei g h th e ev i den ce, d e t e r m i n e qu es ti on s of

cr edi bi l i ty

, or

m ake i ts own f

actu al f i n di n g s .” 1

5. T h e B oar d appl i ed th e cor r ect l eg al s tan dar d bel ow. N a m e ly, 19 Del. C. §

1 M ur phy & Landon, P

A v. P er nic

, 121 A

. 3d 1215, 1222 ( Del

. 2 015)

.

23314( 1) pr ov i des th at an i n di v i du al i s di s q ua lif ie d f or u n em pl oy m en t ben ef i ts i f th ey

“ l ef t wor k v ol u n tar i l y wi t h ou t g ood cau s e.

. . . ” I n th i s con t ex t

, th e bu

r den of pr ov i n g

g ood cau s e i s on th e cl ai m an t. 2

6. T h e Cou

r t f i n ds s u b s tan ti al ev i den ce on th e r ecor d th at Robbi n s v ol u n tar i l y

qu i t h i s em

pl oy m en t. M or eov er

, th e bu

r den bel o w was on Robbi n s to es tabl i s h h i s g ood

cau s e f o r l eav i n g A m azon

. T h e r ecor d es t abl i s h e s t ha t th e on l y wor k ex cu s e n ote

pr es en t ed to th e em

p l oy er r an th

r ou g h Decem

b e r 1 1

, 2014. Robbi n s l ef t A m azon ’ s

em pl o y of h i s own accor d on Decem ber 16, 2 014, ci ti n g an i n abi l i ty to per f o r m r equ i r ed

wor k du e to h i s i n

j u r i es

. A t n o ti m e th er eaf

ter di d Robbi n s pr ov i de a doctor ’ s ex cu s e

to h i s em pl o y er

. F u

r th er m or e, al th ou g h at s om

e poi n t th r ou g h th e h ear i n g p r o c e s s

,

Robbi n s pr ov i ded a s i n g l e ph y s i cal th er apy n ote ev i den ci n g an i n i ti al ev al u ati on dated

J an u ar y 20, 2015, th er e was n o doctor ’ s ex cu s e ev er pr o v i ded. T h e ph

y s i cal th er apy

n ote i n cl u des on l y h i s sel f r epor t to th e th er api s t, on th at si n g l e day

, th at h e was u n abl e

to wor k. T h e B o ar d’ s deci s i on th at Robbi n s di d n ot m eet h i s b ur d e n o f p r oof i s

s u ppor ted by s u bs tan ti al ev i den ce.

2 Longobar

d i v. Unemployment I

ns

. Appeal B d

. , 2 87 A 2d 690, 692 ( Del

. Super

. 1 971)

, af f ’ d

293 A

. 2d 295 ( D el

. 1972)

.

3NO W TH EREF O RE

, f or th e r eas o ns ci ted, t h e B oar d’ s deci s i on i s

AF F I RM ED.

I T I S S O O RDERED.

/ s / J ef f r ey J C lar k

J udge

4