Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2070 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1994 ___________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT v. ROBERT K. LILLEY ___________________________________ Fischer, Hollander, Bell, Rosalyn (ret. specially assigned), JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Hollander, J. ___________________________________ Filed: November 3, 1995

The

Department

of

Economic

and

Employment

Development,

("DEED"), appellant, found Robert K. Lilley, appellee, ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because his claim was untimely filed. After DEED's Board of Appeals (the "Board") denied review,

Lilley sought review of the agency's decision in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. It reversed the Board's decision and

remanded the case to the agency with instructions to backdate Lilley's application and award him unemployment benefits. In its

appeal to this Court, DEED presents three issues for our review, which we have rephrased slightly for clarity: I. Does substantial evidence support the Board's finding that Westinghouse did not knowingly make a false statement with the intent to prevent appellee from collecting benefits? Even if the Board's finding of fact was not supported by substantial evidence, may the circuit court make its own findings instead of remanding the case to the Board?

II.

III. When reversing the Board's decision, may the circuit court substitute a remedy implied but not expressed in the statute or must it remand the case to the Board for the Board's consideration of whether to exercise its discretion? For the reasons discussed below, we answer the first two questions in the negative and, therefore, we decline to decide the remaining issue. Accordingly, we shall vacate the decision of the

circuit court and remand this case to the agency for further proceedings. Factual Background Lilley was employed by Westinghouse for over fourteen years.

In October 1992, Lilley received notice from Westinghouse Electric Corporation that he would be laid off as of December 31, 1993, as part of the company's mass reduction in force at the Integrated Logistics Service Division. At the time of the notice and

subsequent termination, Lilley was on total disability and was receiving monthly disability payments. Westinghouse had opened an on-site resource center to assist affected employees in applying for unemployment insurance benefits. Lilley called the benefits office and, based on his conversation with a benefits representative, Lilley did not file for benefits at the time of termination. Almost a year later, in November 1993, Lilley's doctor found him able to work and released him from care. Lilley applied for unemployment insurance. On November 10, 1993, The claims examiner

determined that Lilley was ineligible for benefits because he did not have sufficient earnings in the preceding base period to qualify.1 The claims examiner also informed Lilley that he would

have qualified for benefits if he had applied in January 1993, directly after his termination from Westinghouse, even though his disability would have prevented him from collecting benefits at that point. Had he filed at the time of termination, Lilley would

To qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, a claimant must have sufficient earnings in the claimant's "base period," which is four of the five quarters immediately preceding the application. Md. Code Ann., Labor & Emp't art.,

Download DEED v. Lilley.pdf

Maryland Law