Court Opinion

ID: 9553100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:22:06.248497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:41.748175
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority resolve this appeal on the ground that substantial evidence in the record supports the final action taken by the Employment Security Commission (ESC or Commission). The threshold question— whether the ESC based its action on all of the evidence in the record — is not addressed. The majority reason that the extent to which the district court considered documents submitted outside the administrative hearing makes no difference since this court is not bound to accept any of the district court’s conclusions. The propriety of the evidence before the district court is not at issue, however. The issue is whether the ESC erred in failing to consider as evidence written statements submitted by appellee Bryant outside the appeals hearing but in connection with his application for unemployment benefits.
In my judgment, these statements constitute evidence and the laws of this state require the ESC to consider their probative value in determining Bryant’s eligibility for benefits. Because the agency is the finder of fact in this case, Employment Security Commission of Wyoming v. Laramie Cabs, Inc., Wyo., 700 P.2d 399 (1985), the appellate issue of substantial evidence addressed by the majority does not arise until and unless we determine that the ESC considered all of the evidence in the record in the first place.
*1318The ESC admits in its brief that it did not consider Bryant’s statements as evidence in reaching its decision:
“ESC’s decision is based on the evidence that was introduced in the evidentiary hearing on this matter and is proper. ESC did not err by failing to consider as evidence written statements made by Bryant outside the evidentiary hearing * * * a
These statements consist of two fact-finding reports, the first submitted to the agency’s deputy in support of Bryant’s initial claim for benefits and the second in support of his request for a redetermination of the deputy’s original decision. These statements are signed by Bryant and provide that the reported facts are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. The record also contains a letter submitted by Bryant to the ESC in response to notification from the Commission of the impending hearing to consider the appeal examiner’s decision.
The ESC concedes that these statements are part of the record in this case. The Commission contends, however, that since the documents were not introduced into evidence at the hearing before the appeal examiner, they are not evidence and were not a proper basis for the agency’s decision. The Wyoming Employment Security Law, §§ 27-3-101 through 27-3-704, W.S. 1977, and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 16-3-101 through 16-3-115, W.S.1977, refute this contention.
Under § 27-3-402(a)1 of the Wyoming Employment Security Law, a deputy designated by the ESC determines a claimant’s eligibility for unemployment benefits based in part on the claimant’s statement of the facts. The deputy’s decision is final unless a party appeals or seeks a redetermination. Since the deputy is the initial finder of fact on behalf of the ESC and since the claimant’s statement forms a partial basis for the deputy’s decision, such statement constitutes evidence in support of the claim for benefits. For the same reasons, the claimant’s statement made in connection with the deputy’s redetermination of eligibility pursuant to § 27-3-402(c), W.S.1977,2 is evidence bearing on a right to benefits.
Section 27-3-404(b) sets out the proper basis for a decision by the ESC upon review:
“(b) Upon review or appeal and based on evidence previously submitted or upon additional evidence it may direct be taken, the commission may affirm, modify or reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeal tribunal.”
The Commission must base its action on all of the evidence previously submitted, including the applicant’s factual statements given to the deputy, or on additional evidence that it directs be taken, which could include Bryant’s letter to the ESC.
Section 27-3-405(a) provides that the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act governs hearings or appeals before the Commission. Section 16-3-1093 of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act directs the agency to consider the whole record in reaching a decision. Section 16-*13193-107(r)4 of the Act requires the agency to base findings of fact exclusively on the evidence in the record and on matters officially noticed. Evidence in the administrative record may derive from sources other than an evidentiary hearing. Holding’s Little America v. Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County, Wyo., 670 P.2d 699 (1983).
The weight to be given the statements at issue in the case at bar depends in part on the extent to which they were impeached at the hearing before the appeal examiner. They are, however, proper evidentiary items which the ESC was not entitled to ignore in deciding Bryant’s eligibility for unemployment benefits. These statements are not materials submitted by an outsider to the proceedings such as tainted the agency’s decision-making process in Fallon v. Wyoming State Board of Medical Examiners, Wyo., 441 P.2d 322 (1968). Nor are they matters to which opposing parties had no opportunity to respond. Clay v. Everett, 4 Ark.App. 122, 628 S.W.2d 339 (1982). Rather, they are signed statements made by the claimant to the Commission in order to prove his right to benefits pursuant to the employment security law. The Commission had an obligation to consider these statements in deciding Bryant’s claim.
I would note further that ample legal authority exists for the proposition that a physical attack or threat of attack by a co-employee constitutes good cause for terminating one’s employment. Escamilla v. Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado, Colo.App., 670 P.2d 815 (1983); Hussa v. Employment Security Department of the State of Washington, 34 Wash.App. 857, 664 P.2d 1286 (1983); Coleman v. Employment Security Department, 25 Wash.App. 405, 607 P.2d 1231 (1980). Whether the incident in the case at bar amounts to good cause for appellee’s voluntarily leaving the job is a question of fact which must be determined on the basis of all of the evidence properly in the record. I would have remanded this case with directions for the ESC to consider appellee’s eligibility for benefits in light of his signed, written statements to the Commission.

. Section 27-3-402(a), W.S.1977, provides:
"(a) Determination of a claim filed pursuant to W.S. 27-3-401(a) shall be made promptly by a deputy designated by the commission. The determination shall state the weekly benefit amount entitlement for that week for the claimant and if a claim is denied, the reasons for denial. * * * Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, a determination is final unless a party entitled to notice applies for redetermination or appeals the determination within ten (10) days after notice is mailed or delivered."

. Section 27-3-402(c), W.S.1977, provides in part:
“(c) The deputy may reconsider a determination if he finds an error in computation or identity, discovers wages of the claimant relevant to but not considered in the determination or finds benefits are allowed, denied or determined on a misrepresentation of facts. * * * A redetermination is final unless a party entitled to notice files an appeal within ten (10) days after notice is mailed or delivered.”

.Section 16-3-109, W.S.1977, provides in part:
"The agency shall consider the whole record or any portion stipulated to by the parties."

. Section 16-3-107(r), W.S.1977, provides:
“(r) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and matters officially noticed.”