Shelby Jean Camden v VEC & Stonewall Jackson Hosp.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
SHELBY JEAN CAMDEN
v. 	Record No. 0624-95-3 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND 	APRIL 30, 1996
STONEWALL JACKSON HOSPITAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY
George E. Honts, III, Judge
Terry M. Burt (Legal Aid Society of Roanoke
Valley, on brief), for appellant.
Donald G. Powers, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
Lisa J. Rowley, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee Virginia Employment
Commission.
No brief or argument for appellee Stonewall
Jackson Hospital.
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Following termination of employment, the Virginia Employment
Commission denied unemployment benefits to Shelby Jean Camden on
the ground that her false statements on her employment
application constituted misconduct related to work. 	Camden
appeals from the decision of the circuit court affirming the
commission. 	She contends that her conduct was insufficient to
disqualify her from benefits. 	We disagree and affirm the
judgment of the circuit court.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in the

- 2 -
cause, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this
memorandum opinion.
"The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if
supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be
conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined
to questions of law." 	Code § 60.2-625(A). 	A claimant is guilty
of misconduct when she deliberately violates a company rule
reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests
of the employer. 	Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va.
609, 611, 249 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). 	Camden does not deny that
her answers on her employment application were inaccurate. 	We
concur with the conclusion of both the commission and the circuit
court that the evidence clearly establishes misconduct by
claimant that bars unemployment benefits as a matter of law. 	See
Code § 60.2-618(2); Branch, 219 Va. at 611-12, 249 S.E.2d at 182.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.