{ "id": 6139618, "name": "Kenneth FERREN v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department, and J W Bailey Landscaping", "name_abbreviation": "Ferren v. Director", "decision_date": "1997-12-03", "docket_number": "E 97-48", "first_page": "213", "last_page": "218", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "59 Ark. App. 213" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "956 S.W.2d 198" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "54 Ark. App. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139478 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/54/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ark. App. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136018 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where the Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we reviewed those findings and conclusions under the applicable standard of review" }, { "parenthetical": "where the Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we reviewed those findings and conclusions under the applicable standard of review" }, { "page": "18-19", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "767", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/56/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 Ark. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1906116 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" }, { "page": "859" }, { "page": "859" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/309/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ark. App. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138090 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "521", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "102" }, { "page": "521", "parenthetical": "\"[w]hile the Commission may specifically adopt the findings of fact made by the administrative law judge, it is necessary under such circumstances that the administrative law judge have made sufficient findings\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/53/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ark. App. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141847 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/1/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ark. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717599 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/217/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ark. 897", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1672690 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0897-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark. App. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136496 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "case reversed and remanded upon Workers' Compensation Commission's failure to make findings of fact" }, { "parenthetical": "case reversed and remanded upon Workers' Compensation Commission's failure to make findings of fact" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/18/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ark. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138320 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "matter remanded to Board of Review in light of its failure to make a finding on an issue" }, { "parenthetical": "matter remanded to Board of Review in light of its failure to make a finding on an issue" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/9/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 432, "char_count": 8564, "ocr_confidence": 0.717, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9078512622206986e-07, "percentile": 0.7311988073435942 }, "sha256": "6f073d1a18eb92f94d95089d4eb9990618492dc3644923403ccb552ce8237578", "simhash": "1:f9fdc046028cae03", "word_count": 1392 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:20.779016+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Crabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Kenneth FERREN v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department, and J W Bailey Landscaping" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "D. Franklin Arey, III, Judge.\nThe Board of Review affirmed the denial of unemployment insurance benefits to the appellant, Kenneth Ferren, on the basis that he left his last work voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work. The Board also affirmed a decision not to reopen the scheduled hearing, upon appellant\u2019s failure to show good cause for not appearing at the hearing. Appellant brings this appeal challenging the Board\u2019s decisions. We must reverse and remand the Board\u2019s decision on the merits, because it did not set forth the findings of fact upon which it relied in reaching its conclusion. However, we affirm the Board\u2019s determination that the hearing should not be reopened.\nAppellant\u2019s challenge to the Board\u2019s denial of benefits requires a review of the Board\u2019s findings. The Employment Security Department denied appellant\u2019s claim for benefits. The Arkansas Appeal Tribunal affirmed the department\u2019s decision. The Appeal Tribunal\u2019s discussion of the merits in its written decision consists of the following:\nAfter a study of the record in this case, the Appeal Tribunal finds that all interested parties have been afforded a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing and that the determination of the Employment Security Department is supported by the record. Therefore, the determination of the Employment Security Department denying the claimant benefits is affirmed.\nThe Appeal Tribunal did not identify any evidence or facts it relied on in making this decision.\nAppellant then appealed to the Board of Review; the Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal. Its discussion was also limited:\nAlso after a consideration of the evidence of record, the Board of Review finds that the decision of the Tribunal which affirmed the Department determination disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11 \u2014 10-513(a) is supported by the record. That Tribunal decision is hereby adopted as part of the decision of the Board of Review. Therefore, the decision of the Appeal Tribunal which left in effect the Department\u2019s determination is affirmed on the finding that the claimant left last work voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work.\nThe Board did not recite the factual basis for its decision; it did not otherwise discuss the evidence before it.\nDid the Board make sufficient findings of fact to permit meaningful appellate review of its decision? It is instructive to review comparable workers\u2019 compensation law on this question. In both areas of the law it is the responsibility of the respective agencies to make findings of fact. Compare Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983) (matter remanded to Board of Review in light of its failure to make a finding on an issue), with Wright v. American Transportation, 18 Ark. App. 18, 709 S.W.2d 107 (1986)(case reversed and remanded upon Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission\u2019s failure to make findings of fact). Our supreme court drew upon workers\u2019 compensation law to establish the scope of judicial review in employment security cases. Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897, 567 S.W.2d 954 (1978). Likewise, our supreme court referred to its practice in workers\u2019 compensation cases when it determined that the Board\u2019s failure to make findings of fact required remand of the matter at hand. Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950). Our court has followed this practice of supplying rules in employment security cases by looking to comparable workers\u2019 compensation law. See City of Fayetteville v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 258, 614 S.W.2d 680 (1981).\nIn the workers\u2019 compensation law context, we have provided some guidance as to what constitutes a sufficient finding of fact:\nA satisfactory, sufficient finding of fact must contain all of the specific facts relevant to the contested issue or issues so that the reviewing court may determine whether the Commission has resolved these issues in conformity with the law. The Commission must find as facts the basic component elements on which its conclusion is based. . . .\nA finding of fact sufficient to permit meaningful review is a \u201csimple straightforward statement of what happened.\u201d\nLowe v. Car Care Mktg., 53 Ark. App. 100, 102, 919 S.W.2d 520, 521 (1996)(citations omitted). A conclusory statement that does not detail or analyze the facts upon which it is based is not sufficient. Cagle Fabricating & Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 309 Ark. 365, 369, 830 S.W.2d 857, 859 (1992).\nUnder these standards, it is apparent that the Board of Review\u2019s decision in this case does not set forth sufficient findings of fact upon which it relied in reaching its conclusion. We are presented with a conclusory statement, labeled a \u201cfinding,\u201d that the appellant \u201cleft last work voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work.\u201d The Board did not detail or analyze the facts upon which this \u201cfinding\u201d was based. See Cagle Fabricating & Steel, Inc., 309 Ark. App. at 369, 830 S.W.2d at 859. The Board failed to provide a simple straightforward statement of what happened; in the absence of such a statement, we cannot determine whether the Board applied Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11 \u2014 10-513(a) (Repl. 1996) in conformity with the law.\nWe note that the Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal\u2019s decision as its own. If the Appeal Tribunal had made findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow meaningful review, this would have been acceptable. See, e.g., Cowan v. Director, 56 Ark. App. 17, 936 S.W.2d 766 (1997)(where the Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law, we reviewed those findings and conclusions under the applicable standard of review); f. Lowe, 53 Ark. App. at 102, 919 S.W.2d at 521 (\u201c[w]hile the Commission may specifically adopt the findings of fact made by the administrative law judge, it is necessary under such circumstances that the administrative law judge have made sufficient findings\u201d). As the excerpt quoted above indicates, the Appeal Tribunal did not make sufficient findings of fact to permit review.\nBecause we are unable to determine the facts upon which the Board relied in reaching its conclusion, we reverse and remand for the Board to make specific findings of fact.\nFor his second point, appellant challenges the Board\u2019s decision not to reopen his hearing. Again, the Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal\u2019s decision as its own. The Appeal Tribunal found that its file contained two call-in slips for the appellant; both slips contained a phone number for a church. The Appeal Tribunal also called the phone number of appellant\u2019s grandmother that was contained in the file. Appellant was not at either of these numbers. Appellant denied leaving the church\u2019s number, and mentioned at the hearing on the reopening issue that he had heard that the employer was bragging about having someone else call in pretending to be appellant. The Appeal Tribunal noted that the church\u2019s number was the only number called in for the appellant; if the employer called that number in, then there was no record of the appellant having called in a correct number at all. The Appeal Tribunal thought it was unlikely that the appellant\u2019s number was copied down incorrectly twice. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that it was more likely that appellant called in the wrong number by mistake; it did not believe that this was good cause for fading to appear.\nOur standard of review is well settled:\nThe findings of fact of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board\u2019s findings. Even when there is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it.\nCowan v. Director, 56 Ark. App. 17, 18-19, 936 S.W.2d 766, 767 (1997) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Carraro v. Director, 54 Ark. App. 210, 924 S.W.2d 819 (1996).\nThe Board\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Board\u2019s decision on this point is affirmed.\nAffirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.\nCrabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "D. Franklin Arey, III, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No briefs filed." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Kenneth FERREN v. DIRECTOR, Employment Security Department, and J W Bailey Landscaping\nE 97-48\n956 S.W.2d 198\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered December 3, 1997\nNo briefs filed." }, "file_name": "0213-01", "first_page_order": 241, "last_page_order": 246 }