Unemployment Claims
Unemployment Claim – Review of Denial
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Sabah v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, No. M2022-00526-COA-R3-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 6, 2023).
We have previously set forth the standard of review we employ in unemployment compensation matters as follows:
This Court reviews administrative unemployment compensation decisions using the same standard employed by trial courts.Ford v. Traughber, 813 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). The standard is more narrow than the broad standard employed in other civil appeals. Wayne Cty. v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274, 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). It is statutorily defined and set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7- 304(i) (2004):
(2) The chancellor may affirm the decision of the board or the chancellor may reverse, remand or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (B) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (C) Made upon unlawful procedure; (D) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (E) Unsupported by evidence that is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record.
We defer to the decisions of administrative agencies when they are acting within their area of specialized knowledge, experience, and expertise. Wayne Cty., 756 S.W.2d at 279.
Moore v. Neeley, No. W2006-00438-COA-R3CV, 2006 WL 3371132, at *2-3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2006).
Kovatch v. Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, No. E2020-01744-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2022).
In reviewing Employee’s unemployment benefits claim, this Court applies the same standards as those used by the trial court. Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953, 955 n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); see also Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty. v. Schacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Tenn. 1977). There is no presumption of correctness afforded to the lower courts in reviewing these matters. Armstrong, 725 S.W.2d at 955 n.1 (citing Wallace v. Sullivan, 561 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Tenn. 1978)).
Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-7-304(i)(2), the Commissioner’s Designee’s decision may be reversed, remanded, or modified where such decision is:
(A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(B) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(C) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(D) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(E) Unsupported by evidence that is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304(i)(2). Although substantial evidence is not statutorily defined, it generally “requires something less than a preponderance of the evidence, but more than a scintilla or glimmer.” Wayne Cty. v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274, 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966); Pace v. Garbage Disposal Dist., 390 S.W.2d 461, 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965)). This Court, like the trial court, is not to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner’s Designee “as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304(i)(3); Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 554 S.W.2d at 604 (noting that appellate courts employ the same standard of review as trial courts when reviewing these administrative matters). The decision of the Commissioner’s Designee shall not be reversed, remanded, or modified “unless for errors that affect the merits” of the designee’s final decision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304(i)(3). The decision must be upheld “if there exists ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a rational conclusion and such as to furnish a reasonably sound basis for the action under consideration.’” Wayne Cty., 756 S.W.2d at 279-80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (quoting Southern Ry. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 682 S.W.2d 196, 199 (Tenn. 1984); Sweet v. State Technical Inst., 617 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981)).
