Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY A. BULLMAN Andrews Harrell Mann Carmin & Parker, P.C. Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana STEPHANIE ROTHENBER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
R.D., Appellant-Petitioner, vs. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and IDWD ADJUDICATION, Appellees-Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

Dec 16 2010, 10:17 am

CLERK

No. 93A02-1005-EX-559

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Steven F. Bier, Chairperson Cause No. 10-R-01689 December 16, 2010 OPINION- FOR PUBLICATION

MATHIAS, Judge

R.D. was laid off by his employer, losing his position as a machinist. Desiring to retrain by obtaining a degree in graphic arts, R.D. took advantage of the Trade Act of 1974 ("the Trade Act"), and applied to use Trade Adjustment Assistance funding established under the Trade Act to pay for retraining in a graphic arts program at the Art Institute of Indianapolis ("the Art Institute"). The Indiana Department of Workforce Development ("the Department") is responsible to administer the funding available to Indiana residents under the Trade Act and in that capacity, the Department denied R.D.s request based on its cost. During the administrative appeal of the Departments denial, the Departments director presented evidence that R.D. could enroll in a program at Ivy Tech at a cost of approximately $11,700, compared to the Art Institutes cost of more than $56,000. The Administrative Law Judge ("the ALJ") hearing R.D.s appeal found that the programs at issue were substantially similar and denied R.D.s application to attend the Art Institute because of the cost difference. The Review Board affirmed the ALJs denial of R.D.s application. R.D. appeals the Review Boards decision, arguing that the evidence established that the Ivy Tech program was not substantially similar to the Art Institutes program and was not suitable for his needs. Concluding that the Review Board erred when it denied R.D.s application for training at the Art Institute, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2

Facts and Procedural History R.D. worked at General Electric ("General Electric") in Bloomington as a machine operator until September 19, 2009, when his employment was terminated due to a reduction in workforce. At the time of his termination, R.D. was earning $24.95 per hour. Thereafter, R.D. applied to the Department for trade adjustment assistance and/or trade readjustment allowance job retraining benefits programs established by the Trade Act.
1

Additional facts, as found by the ALJ, are as follows: The claimant sought training at the Art Institute of Indianapolis which was denied because it did not fall under the "reasonable" cost definition of approvable training. The claimant wanted a degree in Graphic Arts. Classes would begin on or about February 18, 2010 and the training would last until September 24, 2011. The cost for tuition, books, and supplies would be $56,106. There was also a program at Ivy Tech in Indianapolis . . . for a degree in Fine Arts. This program would begin on March 8, 2010. The classes would take 2 years and the total cost would be approximately $11,799.80. For both schools, the claimant would receive mileage because he lives more than 50 miles from Indianapolis, which would add approximately $8,000 to the cost of education. The claimant believed that the training at the Art Institute would be better because it would train the claimant in graphic arts. The claimant also might be able to eliminate some classes after preparing a portfolio for the Art Institute. The department believed that the cost for the Art Institute was unreasonable given the documentation submitted by the claimant compared to the cost of Ivy Tech. The claimant believed the program at the Art Institute would better train him for the type of work he wanted to do. Appellants App. p. 70.

1

19 U.S.C.

Download R.D. v. Review Board.pdf

Indiana Law