{
  "id": 6653604,
  "name": "Rosetta RIVERS v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rivers v. Stiles",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-23",
  "docket_number": "E 84-162",
  "first_page": "121",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ark. App. 121"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "697 S.W.2d 938"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "491 A.2d 944",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ark. App. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139166
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/6/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712409
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0613-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 5831,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3401765894459484
    },
    "sha256": "4751a0b49d526caf874aae791d5e1a7ae620f3b9eef1ff177a4642873eddfbf6",
    "simhash": "1:5fcca05b857e4148",
    "word_count": 958
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:43.530792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Rosetta RIVERS v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nIn this unemployment compensation case, the appellant was denied benefits by the Appeal Tribunal under Ark. Stat. Ann. Section 81-1106 (Supp. 1983) on a finding that she voluntarily quit her last work without good cause connected with the work. The Board of Review, which adopted the Appeal Tribunal\u2019s decision, found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that her marital difficulties qualified as \u201ca personal emergency of such nature and compelling urgency that it would be contrary to good conscience to impose a disqualification.\u201d On appeal, the appellant contends that the Board\u2019s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree with the appellant, and reverse.\nSection 81-1106(a) provides, in pertinent part:\n[A] n individual shall be disqualified for benefits:. . . If he voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work, left his last work. . . Provided no individual shall be disqualified under this subsection if, after making reasonable efforts to preserve his job rights, he left his last work due to a personal emergency of such nature and compelling urgency that it would be contrary to good conscience to impose a disqualification. . . (emphasis added).\nAt the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, the appellant, who was the only witness to testify, stated that she had been physically abused by her husband. She testified that the abuse had continued for'some time, but that it had gotten worse in the five or six months prior to her quitting her job, and that, about a week before she quit, he had threatened her with a knife and a Coke bottle. She further testified that she and her husband argued on July 11,1984, the night before she quit, that she called the police, and her husband threw her out of the house. She sought temporary shelter with a friend, but she was only able to stay there for a few days. She testified that she had been forced to leave town on a number of occasions prior to the incident on July 11 in order to allow her husband time to cool down. She also testified that her employer, who was not present at the hearing, had given her a four-day leave of absence in May, 1984, to try to work out her difficulties, requesting that she return at the end of that time to see if things improved. She did return after that leave of absence, but her marital condition continued to deteriorate. The appellant testified that the police had informed her that they could not help her and that she was unable to afford a lawyer to help her obtain a divorce. She also stated that she had tried unsuccessfully to find an apartment or house in Camden which she could afford on her own.\nThe Board found that such marital difficulties did not constitute a \u201cpersonal emergency\u201d as contemplated by the Act. We are aware that this Court must affirm the Board\u2019s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Woods v. Employment Security Division, 269 Ark. 613, 599 S.W.2d 435 (Ark. App. 1980). In the case at bar, we cannot find substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s decision. While the appellant\u2019s testimony, though she was the only witness, cannot be taken as uncontradicted or undisputed, it cannot be arbitrarily disregarded; there must be some basis for disbelieving it. Timms v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 163, 639 S.W.2d 368 (1982).\nThe appellant\u2019s testimony clearly shows that her physical safety was jeopardized by being in close proximity to her husband; he had threatened her repeatedly, and she had been forced out of her home. It is equally clear that she believed, reasonably it appears, that the police would not help her and that she could not afford legal assistance. She had been unable to find another place to live in Camden which was within her financial means. Threats of physical abuse and ejection from one\u2019s home, sufficient to cause the appellant to seek shelter with others, clearly constitute a \u201cpersonal emergency\u201d under the Act.\nWhile we have not previously decided whether this type of \u201cdomestic situation\u201d can constitute a \u201cpersonal emergency\u201d sufficient to prevent disqualification from unemployment compensation benefits, other states have, in construing similar provisions, determined that such situations, when they jeopardize the well-being of the claimant, constitute such an emergency. See Bacon v. Board of Review, _ Pa. Commw. _, 491 A.2d 944 (1985). We agree with the reasoning in that case and hold that the Board erred in its finding that the appellant\u2019s situation did not constitute \u201ca personal emergency of such nature that it would be contrary to good conscience to impose a disqualification.\u201d\nHowever, that determination does not necessarily qualify the appellant for benefits. Not only must her situation constitute a \u201cpersonal emergency,\u201d she must have also made \u201creasonable efforts to preserve her job rights.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. Section 81-1106(a). The Board did not address this issue, nor did the Appeal Tribunal. Because those agencies decided the case on the ground there was a lack of a compelling \u201cpersonal emergency,\u201d it was not necessary for them to address this second point.\nTherefore, since we find that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s finding that the appellant\u2019s domestic situation did not constitute such a \u201cpersonal emergency\u201d as contemplated under the Act, we reverse; but, since the appellant must also demonstrate that she made reasonable efforts to preserve her job rights, we remand to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nCloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Marilyn Rauch, of Central Arkansas Legal Services, for appellant.",
      "George Wise, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rosetta RIVERS v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor\nE 84-162\n697 S.W.2d 938\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1985\nMarilyn Rauch, of Central Arkansas Legal Services, for appellant.\nGeorge Wise, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0121-01",
  "first_page_order": 147,
  "last_page_order": 151
}