Purpose and Scope of Unemployment Insurance Code

California Unemployment Insurance Code Sec. 1253(c) provides that an unemployed individual is eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits if “[h]e or she was able to work and available for work for that week.” In Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 55, 67, the California Supreme Court found that “availability for work” within the meaning of section 1253(c) “requires no more than

1. that an individual claimant be willing to accept suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing and
2. that the claimant thereby make himself available to a substantial field of employment.”

(Id.)

Trial Court Review of Administrative Decisions

“When reviewing a decision of the Board on a petition for writ of mandate . . . the superior court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence in the administrative record.” (Macgregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 205, 211–12.)

Additionally “[i]n exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 805, 817.)

Standard of Review

CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. (Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.)

CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811.) In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. (Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; See CCP §1094.5(c).) Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the (California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774-782.)

Independent Judgment Test

Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” (Id. at 143.) The court must draw its own reasonable inferences from the evidence and make its own credibility determinations. (Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860, 868.) In short, the court substitutes its judgment for the agency’s regarding the basic facts of what happened, when, why, and the credibility of witnesses. (Guymon v. Board of Accountancy, (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1013-16.)

However, “[i]n exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 817.) Unless it can be demonstrated by petitioner that the agency’s actions are not grounded upon any reasonable basis in law or any substantial basis in fact, the courts should not interfere with the agency’s discretion or substitute their wisdom for that of the agency. (Bixby, supra, 4 Cal.3d 130, 150-151; Bank of America v. State Water Resources Control Board, (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 198, 208.)

In cases other than those requiring the court to exercise its independent judgment, the substantial evidence test applies. CCP §1094.5(c).

Substantial Evidence Defined

“Substantial evidence” is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board, (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585) or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (Mohilef v. Janovici, (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n.28.) The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency’s decision. (California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585.)

“The agency’s decision must be based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing.” (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862.) “The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision.” (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.) “Implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” (Id. at 115.)

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Ev. Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. (Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137.) “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.)

Disability Benefits and Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment compensation insurance provides benefits from the disability fund to disabled persons who, because of their physical or mental condition, are unable to perform their regular or customary work. Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) Sec. 2601. A person may file a first claim for disability benefits after being unemployed and disabled for a period of eight consecutive days, provided that a claimant has been examined by or is under the care of a physician or practitioner during some portion of that period. 22 CCR Sec. 2706-1(a). By filing the first claim, the claimant establishes his or her disability period and EDD computes the weekly benefit amount and maximum benefits potentially payable for the disability period. 22 CCR Sec. 2706-1(b).

If a beneficiary has been receiving disability benefits on an automatic payment cycle for a disability period, the claimant must timely submit the Disability Claim Continuing Eligibility Certification form (“Form”) to EDD to continue receiving disability benefits for the next period. See 22 CCR §2706-3. Specifically, the claimant must submit the Form to EDD within 20 days from either the last day covered by the most recent continued claim or from the day he or she receives the continued claim form from the department, whichever day is later. 22 CCR §2706-3(a). The 20-day period shall be extended by EDD upon a showing of good cause. (Id.) Good cause includes but is not limited to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Gruschka v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.)