{
  "id": 6136753,
  "name": "John DORN v. William F. EVERETT, Director of Labor, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dorn v. Everett",
  "decision_date": "1983-03-23",
  "docket_number": "E 82-223",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "48",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ark. App. 45"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "648 S.W.2d 502"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7521303365563011
    },
    "sha256": "81178ea6ddd19f835b2b49a3ff5c7e4c936709662bf3a3990a65908de2c54549",
    "simhash": "1:b0e1836887e86d9a",
    "word_count": 800
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:48.973709+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John DORN v. William F. EVERETT, Director of Labor, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Judge.\nJohn Dorn was disqualified from receiving extended unemployment compensation benefits under Section 20 (k) (1) (B) of the Arkansas Employment Security Law [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1124 (k) (1) (B) (Supp. 1981)] which provides in part as follows:\nNotwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, an individual shall be ineligible for payment of extended benefits for any week of unemployment in his eligibility period if the Director finds that during such period: . . . (B) he failed to actively engage in seeking work as prescribed under paragraph (6).\nParagraph (6) provides as follows:\nFor the purpose of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) an individual shall be treated as actively engaged in seeking work during any week if... (A) The individual has engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work during such week, and (B) the individual furnishes tangible evidence that he has engaged in such effort during such week.\nThe decision of the Board of Review was based on the following findings of fact:\nThe claimant stated on a written ESD-Ark-EB-2 form to the Agency that he had contacted four possible employers during the week ending March 27, 1982. Three of the employers contacted during that week had been previously contacted by the claimant the week before and only one of the contacts listed was a new one. The claimant stated that the reason he checked back with three employers, which were repeats, was because they had advised him to again contact them as they might have work for him. The claimant stated that he had contacted one other employer which was a new contact during this period, but he thought he was limited to four.\nOn appeal appellant argues the Board of Review\u2019s decision, that he did not conduct an active search for work during the week ending March 27, 1982, is not supported by substantial evidence. In this case the question is, as a matter of law, what consideration and weight will be given \u201crevisits\u201d to formerly contacted employers in determining whether appellant has conducted a systematic and sustained search for work. Appellant points out that a definition of the phrase \u201csystematic and sustained effort to obtain work\u201d has not yet been spelled out and urges this court to set forth a definition within the framework of this case. We must decline to do so. It is not possible to set forth a precise definition of what constitutes a \u201csystematic and sustained effort to obtain work.\u201d The facts of each case must be examined to determine if appellant has met the requirements of the statute.\nAppellant contends that, in looking at the facts contained in the record, he has complied with the statute and should be awarded benefits. He argues that he had provided the Employment Security Division with tangible evidence of his job searches by filling in the \u201cReport of Work Seeking Activities\u201d each week and, in all cases, he followed, as best he could, the instructions which were given to him by the agency. He testified that he revisited the former contacts because he thought that his best opportunity for employment lay with them. In two cases, appellant returned at the specific request of the potential employers. In the third case, appellant revisited an employer who, to the best of appellant\u2019s knowledge, had an available position due to having discharged another employee. Appellant entered into the record a copy of a \u201cReport of Work Seeking Activities\u201d and points out that there are four available \u201cslots\u201d in which to list contacts made to employers; there is no specific instruction that it is a requirement that all four slots be filled out; there is no instruction to list any calls in addition to the basic four; and there is no specification of any kind regarding re-visits to employers.\nWe believe appellant has met the burden imposed by Section 20 (k) (1) (B) and the record lacks substantial evidence to support the Board of Review\u2019s decision in this case. Appellant presented sworn affidavits from two of the three job contacts in question which stated he had been told by them to call back because they might have job openings. He completed the form required by the Employment Security Division, filling in all four slots available. There was no indication on the form or by anyone at the agency that former contacts would not be considered in determining whether appellant was conducting a \u201csystematic and sustained search for work.\u201d\nWe reverse and remand the decision of the Board of Review.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baim, Baim, Gunti, Mouser ir Bryant, by: Judith A.. DeSimone, for appellant.",
      "Thelma Lorenzo, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John DORN v. William F. EVERETT, Director of Labor, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION\nE 82-223\n648 S.W.2d 502\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 23, 1983\nBaim, Baim, Gunti, Mouser ir Bryant, by: Judith A.. DeSimone, for appellant.\nThelma Lorenzo, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 68
}