This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14
- 2092 Ahmed Ghanim, Relator,

vs. FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc.,

Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development ,

Respondent. Filed May 26, 2015 Affirmed Reilly , Judge Department of Employment a nd Economic Development

File No. 32906446

- 3 Ahmed Ghanim, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator) FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, c/o TALX UCM Services Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent) Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development) Considered and decided by Reilly , Presiding Judge; Ross , Judge; and Kirk , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY , Judge Relator challenges the unemployment

- law judge ’s (ULJ) determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by his employer. W e affirm. FACTS Relator Ahmed Ghanim worked at respondent FedEx Kinko ’s Office and Print Services, Inc. (FedEx) as center consultant until he quit due to stressful working conditions and health concerns. Relator worked approximately 38 hours per week. As part of his employment, relator was required to lift packages over 50 pounds and to stand on his feet for eight hours at a time. On September 20, 2014, relator quit his employment because he started havi ng pain in his back and hands. In addition, his job required him to multi

- task, which caused him “extreme headaches.”
R elator applied for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DEED determined that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits

. After an administrative appeal, a ULJ held an evidentiary hearing. Relator represented h imself , and no one appeared on behalf of FedEx. T he ULJ determined that relator did not have good reason to q uit caused by the employer and that he did not quit out of medical necessity. T he ULJ found that relator quit specifically because “the job became too difficult for him.” The ULJ also found that relator did not notify his employer of his health issues pr ior to quitting. R elator moved3

for reconsideration. The ULJ denied the request for reconsideration and affirmed h is prior ruling. Relator appeals

. D E C I S I O N Relator appeal s from the ULJ’s decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment with FedEx . This court reviews a ULJ’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to determine whether the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are in violation of constitutional provisions, in e xcess of statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious. Min n. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014). The ULJ’s factual findings are viewed in the light most f avorable to the decision being reviewed, and this court defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Whether the ULJ’s findings establish that the applicant falls within a statutory exc eption to ineligibility presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See, e.g. , Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. , 720 N.W.2 d 590, 594

- 95 (Minn. App. 2006); Madsen v. Adam Corp. , 647 N.W.2d 35, 38

- 39 (Minn. App. 2002) (reviewing application of the medical

- necessity exception de novo). The purpose of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law is to assist those who are “unemployed through no fault of their own

. ” Minn. Stat. § 268.03, s ubd. 1 (2014 ). The law is “remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits,” and any provision precluding receipt of benefits must be4

narrowly construed. Minn . Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2014 ). There is no burden of proof in une mployment

- insurance proceedings, Minn . Stat. § 268. 069, subd. 2 (2014), n or is there equitable denial or allowance of benefits. Minn . Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2014 ). An employee who quits employment is generally ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2014 ). “A quit from employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee’s.” Id. , subd. 2(a). It is undisputed that relator quit his employment. An employee who quits employment , however, is eligible for benefits if the employee quit s because of one of the exceptions listed in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1. Relator challenges the ULJ’s conclusion that none of the exceptions in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 , apply to h is case. One exception found in Minn. Stat. § 268.095 is whe n a “serious illness or injury made it medically necessary that the applicant quit,” provided that ( 1) the applicant informs the employer about the medical problem, ( 2) the applicant requests an accommodation, and ( 3) no reasonable accommodat ion is made available

. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(7)

. Relator claims that he quit because he was unable to complete the job requirements due primarily to back pain. But r elator did not inform FedEx of his back issues prior to quitting, and the ULJ found that relator “never went to see a doctor, never notified the employer of his issues, and did not request an accommodation prior to quitting.” Minnesota Statute s section 268.095, subdivision 1(7) , is clear that a request for

an accommodation is a pre requisite to the application of the medical

- necessity exception.5

Because relator did not inform FedEx of his medical issues and did not submit a request to his employer for an accommodation, relator did not meet all of the requirements for the medical

- n ecessity exception. The ULJ did not err in refusing to apply the medical

- necessity exception to relator’s situation. Accordingly, the record substantially supports the ULJ’s decision that relator quit his employment without a good reason caused by his em ployer and is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Affirmed.