Opinion ID: 1288441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review and the test for misconduct

Text: The standard for reviewing a determination of the Commission in an unemployment case and the underlying definition of misconduct that governs whether a discharged employee is eligible for unemployment benefits is set forth in Campbell v. Bonneville County Bd. of Commr's, 126 Idaho 222, 225, 880 P.2d 252, 255 (1994): This Court only reviews questions of law in an appeal from a decision of the Commission, disturbing findings of fact on appeal only where they are not supported by substantial and competent evidence. Davis v. Howard O. Miller Co., 107 Idaho 1092, 1094, 695 P.2d 1231, 1233 (1984). This Court has articulated a test for three types of conduct to determine whether an employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits due to a discharge based on misconduct as used in I.C. § 72-1366(e) by defining misconduct as willful, intentional disregard of the employer's interest; a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; or a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employees. Puckett v. Idaho Dep't of Corrections, 107 Idaho 1022, 1023, 695 P.2d 407, 408 (1985) (quotations omitted). We have further subdivided the test for the third type of conduct by bifurcating the test for standards of behavior misconduct into an evaluation of (1) whether the employee's conduct fell below the standard of behavior expected by the employer; and (2) whether the employer's expectation was objectively reasonable in the particular case. Id. at 1023-24, 695 P.2d at 408-09. The tests for the first two types of misconduct are clearly factual determinations. We have previously said that the third test is also a question of fact. Puckett, 107 Idaho at 1024, 695 P.2d at 409. In unemployment cases the findings of the Industrial Commission will be upheld on appeal when sustained by substantial and competent, though conflicting evidence. Lang v. Ustick Dental Office, P.A., 120 Idaho 545, 547, 817 P.2d 1069, 1071 (1991). This standard has been further defined in workers' compensation decisions: Substantial and competent evidence consists of `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' Reiher v. American Fine Foods, 126 Idaho 58, 60, 878 P.2d 757, 759 (1994). Moreover, we refuse to disturb on appeal the Commission's conclusions as to the weight and credibility of the evidence unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 61, 878 P.2d at 760.