Opinion ID: 874546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the Decision of the Industrial Commission Supported by Substantial and Competent Evidence?

Text: When considering an appeal from the Industrial Commission, this Court is limited to reviewing questions of law. Idaho Const. Art. V, § 9. The Commission's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal where they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. I.C. § 72-732. Pimley v. Best Values, Inc., 132 Idaho 432, 434, 974 P.2d 78, 80 (1999). Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. The Court will not re-weigh the evidence or consider whether it would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented. Edwards v. Independence Services, Inc., 140 Idaho 912, 914, 104 P.3d 954, 956 (2004). Idaho Code § 72-1366 provides, A claimant shall not be entitled to [unemployment] benefits for a period of fifty-two (52) weeks if it is determined that he has willfully made a false statement or willfully failed to report a material fact in order to obtain benefits. [A] fact is material if it is relevant to the determination of a claimant's right to benefits; it need not actually affect the outcome of that determination. Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 99 Idaho 754, 760, 589 P.2d 89, 95 (1979). The term willfully refers to those claimants who purposely, intentionally, consciously, or knowingly fail to report a material fact [or make a false statement], not those whose omission [or false statement] is accidental because of negligence, misunderstanding or other cause. Id. at 761, 589 P.2d at 96. The Industrial Commission found as follows: In her Decision, the Appeals Examiner noted the discrepancy between what Claimant reported and what Employer reported was not simply a minor portion of her earnings. Claimant reported $1,849.96 less than the $3,200.96 her Employer reported. Each week, Claimant reported less than half her weekly benefit amount of $325.00. The Handbook Claimant acknowledged reading told her, You can earn up to one-half your weekly benefit amount and still receive the full weekly benefit amount for that week. (Handbook, p. 15) Finally, each time Claimant called to report, the process began with the following message: By using this system you agree to have your answers become part of your claim record. You are certifying that your answers are true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. Under Idaho Law, you could be penalized for giving false answers [or] for withholding information. (Unemployment Insurance Handbook, p. 10 (emphasis original)). Although she was reminded each time that her answers had to be accurate and truthful, she opted not to take any steps to insure her answers were accurate. Under the circumstances, we find Claimant knew or should have known she needed to insure she reported her earnings accurately, but nevertheless deliberately chose not to do so. A finding that a claimant knew what information IDCL solicited, but nevertheless deliberately chose to respond without pursuing clarification ordinarily supports a conclusion of willful falsehood or concealment. Meyer, 99 Idaho at 762, 589 P.2d at 97. As a result, we find Claimant willfully chose to conceal the true extent of her earnings during the period at issue. Cox contends that the Commission's findings are not supported by substantial and competent evidence in several respects. First, she argues that she denied wrongdoing and there was no testimony controverting her denial. She contends that there must be expert testimony establishing that Cox's false reporting of her wages was willful. A claimant's mental state need not be established by expert testimony; it can be inferred from the claimant's conduct and from the circumstances. Doe I v. Doe, 138 Idaho 893, 900, 71 P.3d 1040, 1047 (2003) (willful intent is provable by circumstantial evidence). Cox underreported her wages for eighteen of the twenty-one weeks she was receiving benefits. The Commission could infer from the facts in the case that her underreporting was willful and not accidental. It was not required to accept her assertion that she tried to keep track of her income in her head and reported it to the best of her knowledge. It was an issue of credibility. The factfinder may consider the claimant's explanation unworthy of belief. Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 99 Idaho 754, 762, 589 P.2d 89, 97 (1979). Next, Cox contends that the Pub's business manager was never asked, and never testified, that the wages reported for the Claimant in Exhibit 6 were accurate. Exhibit 6 was a form listing Cox's wages and tips for each of the weeks at issue. The business manager testified that she filled out Exhibit 6 and that she obtained the information from two sources. One source was the time cards prepared by the Pub's automated system that recorded when Cox checked in and out each work day. The other source was the entries in that automated system made by Cox at the end of each shift stating the amount she had received in tips. The Pub's general manager could alter the hours worked if, for example, an employee failed to clock in or clock out. The general manager could not alter the amount the employee entered in tips. The business manager signed Exhibit 6, and just above her signature was the statement, The information provided by me is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Cox was provided with a copy of Exhibit 6 prior to the hearing, and she did not object to it being admitted into evidence. She also did not ask any questions of the Pub's office manager. The Commission's finding as to the wages and tips Cox received during the weeks at issue is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Finally, Cox argues facts that she contends show that she did not act willfully in underreporting her income. She points out that during the first week she reported more income than she received and that during eight of the weeks she would still have been entitled to benefits had she reported her income accurately. The Court will not re-weigh the evidence or consider whether it would have reached a different conclusion from the evidence presented. Edwards v. Independence Services, Inc., 140 Idaho 912, 914, 104 P.3d 954, 956 (2004). The Commission's finding that Cox willfully underreported her income is supported by substantial and competent evidence.