Kathleen Lehoe v. Department of Labor

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 22-AP-289
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

JUNE TERM, 2023

Kathleen Lehoe* v. Department of Labor } APPEALED FROM:
}
} Employment Security Board
}
} CASE NO. 10-21-134-01

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Claimant appeals pro se from the Employment Security Board’s determination that she
wrongfully received unemployment benefits and was liable for the overpayment. We affirm.

The record indicates the following. Claimant sought and received unemployment
benefits beginning in April 2020. On June 30, 2021, claimant notified the Department of Labor
that she was unavailable to work. Claimant was sent a medical certification form, which her
medical provider completed. After reviewing the matter, a claims adjudicator determined that
claimant was not entitled to the unemployment benefits that she had received because she had
not been able or available for work. Claimant appealed this determination to an administrative
law judge (ALJ). Following a hearing, the ALJ reached a similar conclusion. The ALJ made the
following findings. Claimant worked at a supermarket until March 10, 2020. At that time, she
was placed on leave due to a flare-up of a chronic painful skin condition. She was also having
back pain and gastrointestinal issues. According to claimant’s doctor, claimant was unable to
work as of March 10, 2020; her condition was not COVID related and her inability to work was
not due to being at high risk for COVID. The doctor released claimant to work on August 30,
2021.

Notwithstanding her inability to work, claimant had filed weekly claims beginning in
April 2020 stating that she was able and available for work. Because she failed to meet the
eligibility requirements to receive unemployment compensation, the ALJ found claimant liable
for an overpayment under 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a). Claimant appealed to the Board, which adopted
the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. This appeal followed.

Claimant asserts on appeal that she decided it was unsafe to return to work given the
COVID-19 pandemic. She contends that her fear and anxiety about COVID caused the flare-up
of her skin condition and that she had a fear of having a heart attack as well. Given this, she
argues that she did not wrongfully receive the unemployment benefits.
Our review of the Board’s decision is “highly deferential.” 863 To Go, Inc. v. Dep’t of
Lab., 2014 VT 61, ¶ 8, 196 Vt. 551. We “will uphold the Board’s factual findings unless clearly
erroneous and its conclusions of law if fairly and reasonably supported by those findings.”
Bouchard v. Dep’t of Emp. & Training, 174 Vt. 588, 589 (2002) (mem.) (citation omitted).
“Absent a clear showing to the contrary, any decisions within the Board’s expertise are presumed
to be correct, valid, and reasonable.” Id.

There was no error here. As referenced above, a claimant must be “able to work” and
“available for work” to be entitled to unemployment benefits. 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3). We have
explained that “the purpose of the unemployment compensation law is not to provide sick
benefits nor to compensate those who cease working because of illness.” LaFountain v. Dep’t of
Lab., 2018 VT 31, ¶ 7, 207 Vt. 120 (quotation omitted). “Instead, the law is designed to assist
members of the working force who are made jobless by operations of the economy over which
they have no individual control.” Id. (quotation omitted).

The Board found here, based on medical information provided by claimant’s doctor, that
claimant was not able and available for work during the periods in question. Her doctor
identified the reason as a flare-up of her skin condition and stated that it was not related to
COVID or being at high risk for COVID. These findings are supported by the record.

The Board did not err in holding claimant liable for the overpayment. It did not need to
find that claimant made a knowing misrepresentation or acted fraudulently to reach this
conclusion. Pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a):

any person who by nondisclosure or misrepresentation by him or
her . . . of a material fact (irrespective of whether such
nondisclosure or misrepresentation was known or fraudulent) has
received any amount as benefits . . . while any conditions for the
receipt of benefits . . . were not fulfilled in his or her case or while
he or she was disqualified from receiving benefits, shall be liable
for such amount.

As set forth above, claimant erroneously stated that she was able and available to work during
periods where she was not in fact able or available to work due to a non-COVID-related medical
condition. She is thus liable under § 1347(a) to repay the Department for the benefits that she
received. There is no basis to disturb the Board’s decision.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

2