Opinion ID: 1713166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Agency Findings With Regard to Facts Alleged to Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct.

Text: We next consider whether the findings of fact contained in the final agency decision adequately resolved the conflicting claims with regard to the allegedly disqualifying misconduct. The district court believed the agency findings were deficient with regard to crucial issues. Iowa Code section 17A.16(1) (1983) provides that both a proposed and a final agency decision shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of underlying facts supporting the findings. In the present case, the fighting issue is the weight to be accorded petitioner's contentions that his conduct was the result of job-related fatigue aggravated by health problems, and, consequently, was not sufficiently culpable to warrant his disqualification from unemployment benefits. Petitioner urges that the record fails to show the hearing officer adequately considered his version of the facts. The absence of an express disposition of a material factual issue in an agency decision may be excused on judicial review if it is clear from the context of the issues considered and the disposition of the case what the finding was on that issue. In these situations, the result telegraphs the findings made on the material elements. As we have indicated, petitioner's showing is not insufficient as a matter of law. His contentions were sufficiently cognizable to require that they be considered, evaluated, and adjudicated by the agency. We believe, however, that record is sufficient to demonstrate that they were considered and rejected as factually inadequate. The agency's decision recited that it had heard and considered all of the evidence and claims made. It then concluded that [t]he conduct of the claimant was contrary to and not in the best interests of the employer. The claimant's actions in sleeping while on duty show a willful and deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer has the right to expect from its employees and is therefore job misconduct within the meaning of [section 96.5(2)(a) ] of the Iowa Code. Misconduct was alleged by the employer as the reason for discharge and misconduct has been established by the record. We conclude the findings are sufficient to support the disqualification and the evidence is sufficient to support the findings. The decision of the court of appeals is vacated. The decision of the district court is reversed. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED.