{ "id": 1573080, "name": "Jimmie G. TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NEW MEXICO, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Economic Opportunity Board, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Trujillo v. Employment Security Commission", "decision_date": "1980-05-05", "docket_number": "No. 12565", "first_page": "343", "last_page": "345", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 N.M. 343" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "610 P.2d 747" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "81 N.M. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5363476 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9" }, { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N.E.2d 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.Y. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2053920 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/289/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.E. 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1916, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.Y. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 77980 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/218/0435-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 362, "char_count": 5133, "ocr_confidence": 0.832, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7973727910829766e-07, "percentile": 0.7158695352508969 }, "sha256": "25d2e65b08fb3aebc7d14835f469494e78f7d9880e5755668f42c5ec756a6c18", "simhash": "1:d2dd7681918f3422", "word_count": 801 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:16.712923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, C. J., and FELTER, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Jimmie G. TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NEW MEXICO, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Economic Opportunity Board, Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPAYNE, Justice.\nAppellant, Jimmie Trujillo, was fired on April 29, 1977, from his job with the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Economic Opportunity Board. He applied for and was granted unemployment compensation benefits by the Employment Security Commission (E.S.C.), but the E.S.C. Appeals Tribunal reversed the award and demanded the return of amounts already paid to Trujillo. Trujillo sought review in the district court, and the court affirmed the E.S.C.\u2019s final decision, whereupon Trujillo appealed to this Court. We reverse.\nTrujillo\u2019s employer leveled six charges of employment misconduct against him, any one of which, if substantiated, would have justified his dismissal without unemployment benefits. The only charge which the Appeals Tribunal found meritorious was that Trujillo conspired to align members of an advisory council against his superior, Eric Berg. The only evidence offered in support of that charge was the testimony given by Berg himself. He testified that three members of the council had told him on several occasions prior to official council meetings that Trujillo had told them that Berg was taking actions which violated federal program regulations. As a consequence, Berg testified, council members consistently questioned his decisions and forced him to prove the correctness of his actions.\nTrujillo correctly contends that Berg\u2019s testimony was based upon hearsay. That testimony, moreover, was controverted by Trujillo. The Appeals Tribunal could not have verified the accuracy of Berg\u2019s testimony nor ascertained the impressions of council members as they were never called upon to testify.\nThis appeal raises one issue: whether the E.S.C.\u2019s decision \u2014 that Trujillo was guilty of employment misconduct sufficient to deny him unemployment benefits \u2014 is supported by substantial evidence. Related to the resolution of this issue is whether the \u201clegal residuum rule\u201d is applicable to this administrative decision.\n\u201cThe residuum rule requires a reviewing court to set aside an administrative finding unless the finding is supported by evidence which would be admissible in a jury trial.\u201d 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise \u00a7 14.-10, pp. 291-92 (1958). The rule was first enunciated in Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N.Y. 435, 113 N.E. 507 (1916). That court set aside the compensation award of an administrative agency because the crucial finding there was based entirely upon the hearsay testimony of witnesses who said that the decedent had told them what caused his injury. The court concluded that \u201cstill in the end, there must be a residuum of legal evidence to support the claim before an award can be made.\u201d 113 N.E. at 509.\nSince the Carroli case, courts have qualified their adherence to the rule. Altschuiler v. Bressler, 289 N.Y. 463, 46 N.E.2d 886 (1943). Commentators have criticized it. 2 Davis, supra, \u00a7\u00a7 14.09-14.10 (1958). Professor Davis states that:\nRejection of the residuum rule does not mean that an agency is compelled to rely upon incompetent evidence; it means only that the agency and the reviewing court are free to rely upon the evidence if in the circumstances they believe that the evidence should be relied upon. Rejection of the residuum rule does not mean that a reviewing court must refuse to set aside a finding based upon incompetent evidence; it means only that the court may set aside the finding or refuse to do so as it sees fit, in accordance with its own determination of the question whether the evidence supporting the finding should be deemed reliable and substantial in the circumstances.\nId. \u00a7 14.10, at p. 293.\nThis is the proper position regarding evidence in most administrative adjudications. In many circumstances hearsay is reliable and probative, and at times it may be the only evidence available. Nevertheless, we believe that the residuum rule should be retained in those administrative proceedings where a substantial right, such as one\u2019s ability to earn a livelihood, is at stake. In those instances, \u201cany action depriving him of that [right or ability] must be based upon such substantial evidence as would support a verdict in a court of law.\u201d Young v. Board of Pharmacy, 81 N.M. 5, 9, 462 P.2d 139, 142 (1969).\nWe interpret Section 51-1-3, N.M. S.A.1978, to establish unemployment compensation as a substantial right as a matter of public policy. The benefits in this case may not be denied on the basis of controverted hearsay alone. Controverted hearsay under these facts does not qualify as substantial evidence.\nFor this reason, we reverse.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, C. J., and FELTER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PAYNE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Freedman, Boyd & Daniels, John W. Boyd, David Allen Grammer III, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.", "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, John P. Salazar, Albuquerque, for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County E O B.", "J. R. Baumgartner, Albuquerque, for Employment Sec. Commission." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "610 P.2d 747\nJimmie G. TRUJILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NEW MEXICO, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Economic Opportunity Board, Respondents-Appellees.\nNo. 12565.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 5, 1980.\nFreedman, Boyd & Daniels, John W. Boyd, David Allen Grammer III, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, John P. Salazar, Albuquerque, for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County E O B.\nJ. R. Baumgartner, Albuquerque, for Employment Sec. Commission." }, "file_name": "0343-01", "first_page_order": 379, "last_page_order": 381 }