What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

CANDACE R SAUNDERS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

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. 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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VAXMONSKY V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256 states, in pertinent part, “An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.” Steinberg v. Unemployment Ins.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IN THE MATTER OF: JAE KYUNG KIM

Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

VIRGINA SIERRA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ARTHUR WEBB VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

DEFENDANT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff is challenging the denial of Employment Development Department benefits. The benefits were denied in case #A0-138442 by defendant on October 27, 2006 and plaintiff did not take a writ pursuant to CCP section 1094.5, from that decision. The decision by Judge Berger in case #1942825 only allowed plaintiff to reopen that case, not the prior case (#1892564/A0-138442).

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2008

SANCHEZ VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review for review of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that the findings are not supported by the evidence is the independent judgment test. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC VS. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION

As a result, the Court of Appeal there found the trial court’s “traditional invocation[]” of CCP § 1094.5(e) to be inapposite. (Ibid.) The same holds true here. The remediation effort at issue is a highly technical action that has been going on for 25 years. It is not a straightforward entitlement hearing like the unemployment benefits proceeding in Windigo Mills.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

CATERINA LIPERA VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE ET

CCP §1094.5(a). LAUSD argues that Lipera’s record preparation costs were incurred prior to the October 26, 2018 approval of her fee waiver, and nothing in CCP section 1094.5(a) requires her reimbursement. Opp. at 3 is not persuasive. CCP section 1095.5(a) has no temporal requirement that a fee waiver be obtained before the costs of preparing the record are incurred. The evidence shows that Lipera stopped receiving unemployment benefits several months before she paid for the record. Lipera Decl. ¶2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CORTEZ V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD

Cortez (“Cortez”) is a seasonal tax preparer who was granted unemployment benefits beginning April 23, 2017. Cortez subsequently filed applications with the EDD to extend his benefits through a training extension and through the California Training Benefits Program under California Unemployment Insurance Code (CIC) §1269 and 1271. These applications were denied on July 31, 2017. Mr. Cortez appealed those denials to an administrative law judge (ALJ) who affirmed the findings of the EDD on October 2, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.) Petitioner had the burden to produce any relevant documents. Petitioner does not cite any legal authority that the OSC had any duty to obtain the OPHD investigation materials. The court finds the documents were not improperly excluded under CCP section 1094.5(e).

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TILLERY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

Tillery seeks a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The writ is directed to respondents California Employment Development Department and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the board) and asks the court to set aside the board’s decision denying petitioner’s claim for disability insurance benefits.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

RUBEN NICK RAMIREZ VS UNEMPLOYMENT OF APPEALS BOARD

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. 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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KATHY MCANANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

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 CUIAB. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ACCUZIP, INC. V. CAL. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Where “the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1094.5, subd. (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

JUAN SALAZAR VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

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. 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review is the independent judgment test when there is a contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

MEDINA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

In the case of unemployment benefits, these are generally considered to be both vested and fundamental. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bd. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774. Under the independent judgment test, the trial court is free to reweigh the evidence and inferences to determine if the “correct” result was reached. Candari v. LA Unified School Dist (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 402, 407.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

APS WEST COAST, INC. V. CITY OF BENICIA, ET AL.

. §1094.5(e) provides an exception to this rule, authorizing the court to also consider relevant evidence which was either improperly excluded from the administrative record, or that could not have been produced in the exercise of reasonable diligence, by the party now attempting to rely upon it.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

STEWART V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEAL BOARD

Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The claim was denied by the California Employment Development Department on June 30, 2019, which found that petitioner’s resignation to be due to dissatisfaction with the terms of employment. Petitioner filed an appeal with California Unemployment Insurance Board and the administrative law judge affirmed the Department’s determination by decision dated August 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).) Instead, it is simply directing the Board to decide that appeal on the merits rather than Q dismissing it as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review is the independent judgment test when there is a contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.