Court Opinion

ID: 9594687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:32:01.79111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:58.161440
License: Public Domain

*280Judge Lewis
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The superior court correctly ruled that the ESC’s findings of fact were not supported by sufficient competent evidence. There was no evidence to support the ESC’s finding that the job would have required Lynch to travel a minimum of 270 miles per day. The majority implies that logical reasoning permits the inference that the three-visit per day schedule would require Lynch to drive home after each visit. I find no logical reason why anyone would drive the forty-five miles to work for the first visit at 8:00 a.m., then home, then back for the second visit, then home, then back for the third visit, then home at 6:00 p.m.
As to the forty-five mile commute, I note that on Lynch’s 1991 application for employment, she answered “yes” to the following three questions: “Can you travel 30 miles (one-way) daily to work?”; “Can you travel over 30 miles occasionally to work?”; “Can you travel over 30 miles routinely to work?” Additionally, one of the “special requirements” of the terms of her employment was that she have transportation.
Because the superior court correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the ESC’s findings of fact, I would affirm the judgment of the superior court.