Court Opinion

ID: 9387770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 21:05:41.892803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.439231
License: Public Domain

04/18/2023

                                          DA 22-0560
                                                                                      Case Number: DA 22-0560

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                          2023 MT 69N

PETER GRIGG,

              Petitioner and Appellant,

         v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
& INDUSTRY, UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,

              Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
                      In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-22-453(A)
                      Honorable Amy Eddy, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

               For Appellant:

                      Peter Grigg, Self-Represented, Kalispell, Montana

               For Appellee:

                      Quinlan L. O’Connor, Department of Labor & Industry, Helena,
                      Montana

                                                  Submitted on Briefs: March 29, 2023

                                                            Decided: April 18, 2023

Filed:
                                Vor-641•—if
                      __________________________________________
                                       Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     Peter Grigg (Grigg) appeals from an Order denying his Petition for Judicial Review

issued by the Eleventh Judicial District Court on September 21, 2022. We affirm.

¶3     On May 24, 2020, Grigg filed an initial claim for unemployment insurance benefits.

He reported having worked zero hours and earning zero wages for each of the five benefits

weeks between September 5, 2020, and October 3, 2020.

¶4     On February 2, 2021, Grigg’s employer reported to Department of Labor & Industry

(DOLI) that Grigg worked more than 150 hours and earned $10.50 per hour in wages

between August 30, 2020, and October 3, 2020.

¶5     On September 28, 2021, DOLI sent Grigg a Claims Investigation Notice of Conflict

(Notice). DOLI informed Grigg of the inconsistency between his report and his employer’s

records. The Notice stated that Grigg could submit “documents (timecards, check stubs,

work schedules, etc.) [to] disprove the employer’s reported earnings for the weeks in

conflict.”

¶6     On October 4, 2021, Grigg responded to the Notice with notes claiming he had

worked 100 total hours at $10.00 per hour during the weeks at issue. An Unemployment

                                            2
Insurance Claims Investigator informed Grigg that he would need to verify his hours by

submitting paystubs or timecards.       Grigg did not provide DOLI with any verifying

information between October 4, 2021, and December 3, 2021.

¶7     On December 3, 2021, DOLI determined that Grigg knowingly made false

statements to receive unemployment benefits by failing to report hours and earnings for the

weeks at issue. DOLI imposed a two-part administrative penalty: Grigg was disqualified

from ten weeks of future benefits and Grigg was assessed a penalty of $40.50 or 50 percent

of the overpaid benefits he received.

¶8     On December 12, 2021, Grigg requested a redetermination of DOLI’s decision. On

the same day, the Unemployment Insurance Claims Investigator again informed Grigg that

he needed to provide paystubs or timecards to dispute the overpayment. Grigg again failed

to submit that information. A redetermination of DOLI’s decision affirmed the original

decision.

¶9     On February 17, 2022, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) conducted a

telephonic hearing of Grigg’s appeal of DOLI’s redetermination decision.

¶10    On March 3, 2022, an OAH hearings officer affirmed DOLI’s redetermination

decision. The officer concluded that Grigg failed to provide credible testimony to verify

his allegations; that his employer provided accurate records of Grigg’s hours and wages;

that Grigg knew he initially reported false hours and earnings to receive benefits; that Grigg

had been repeatedly advised that his failure to accurately report his hours and earnings may

be fraud; and, that DOLI properly issued a $40.50 penalty.

                                              3
¶11    On April 11, 2022, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (UIAB) affirmed

OAH’s decision upon an appeal by Grigg. The UIAB determined that OAH relied on

substantial credible evidence.

¶12    On April 21, 2022, Grigg filed a Petition for Judicial Review. He reasserted his

original claim—that he worked zero hours and earned zero wages during the period in

question. Grigg alleged that DOLI’s computer system and IDme program were faulty. He

also contended that he did not have any clients or earn any wages through his employer

until October 2020, despite having signed an employment contract in September 2020.

¶13    On June 22, 2022, Grigg filed a Motion for Jury Trial and sought a Subpoena Duces

Tecum to conduct further discovery by obtaining evidence from DOLI.

¶14    On July 8, 2022, the District Court denied Grigg’s Motion for Jury Trial and

quashed his Subpoena Duces Tecum. The court explained that the law afforded no basis

for discovery during appellate review of an unemployment insurance dispute.

¶15    On July 11, 2022, Grigg filed a Motion to Compel, intending to compel DOLI to

answer his discovery requests and to produce the evidence he had requested in his

subpoena. He also sought to compel DOLI to attend a jury trial.

¶16    On July 25, 2022, Grigg filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that DOLI did not offer

testamentary evidence.

¶17    On September 21, 2022, the District Court issued an Order denying Grigg’s Petition

for Judicial Review—thereby rendering moot both his Motion to Compel and Motion to

Dismiss.

                                           4
¶18    The District Court restated the evidence provided by Grigg’s employer indicating

that he worked 15 hours and earned $167.50 between August 30, 2020, and September 5,

2020, 68 hours and $769.43 between September 6, 2020, and September 19, 2020, and

71.50 hours and $807.75 between September 20, 2020, and October 3, 2020. The court

summarized the numerous opportunities afforded to but missed by Grigg to provide

paystubs or timecards to contest his employer’s records. The court also evaluated the

relevancy of Grigg’s claims of flaws within DOLI’s computer systems and IDme program.

¶19    The District Court concluded that the UIAB’s findings were supported by

substantial evidence—specifically, the employer’s records. Based on the limited scope of

the court’s review of the UIAB decisions, the court stated that it could not consider

allegations and arguments by Grigg that did not have any basis in the administrative record.

¶20    On judicial review, this Court regards UIAB’s findings of fact as conclusive, if

supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud. “Supported by the evidence” means

supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is something more than a scintilla

of evidence, but less than a preponderance of evidence. If supported by substantial

evidence, the UIAB’s findings of fact are conclusive—even where substantial evidence

exists to the contrary. Johnson v. W. Transp., LLC, 2011 MT 13, ¶¶ 16-17, 359 Mont. 145,

247 P.3d 1094.

¶21    The District Court, the UIAB, OAH, and DOLI all relied on the same evidence from

Grigg’s employer related to his hours and wages during the period in question. Grigg did

not provide any substantive evidence to contradict his employer’s reports on his hours and

wages. This Court concludes that substantial evidence supported UIAB’s findings.

                                             5
¶22    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶23    Affirmed.

                                                 /S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JIM RICE

                                             6