Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Hamilton Heights School Corp. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Sherri K. Stepp, and The Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, a 15-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
Appellant-Respondent Hamilton Heights School Corporation (“Employer”) appeals the determination of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the “Review Board”) in which the Review Board found Employer liable for unemployment benefits relating to its dismissal of a former employee. Concluding that the notice of the in-person hearing that was given to Employer was inadequate in light of the procedural history of the instant matter together with the confusing and seemingly inconsistent information contained in the documentation issued by the Department of Workforce Development (the “Department”), we reverse and remand to the Review Board with instructions. * * *In Sterlen Shane Keller v. State of Indiana , a 6-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
BROWN, J., concurs.
RILEY, J., dissents with opinion. [beginning on p. 11 of 15] Based upon the inattentiveness of the person charged with calendaring the hearing, Hamilton Heights assumed that the August Hearing was to be held by phone and thus failed to appear in person. Sherri Stepp (Stepp), a custodian who worked for Hamilton Heights for more than 16 years, was awarded unemployment insurance benefits because no present evidence was presented in opposition to her claim. * * *
We are therefore left with the following legal precedent: an employer is denied due process by failing to participate at an unemployment compensation hearing when such failure is caused by a) the employer’s reliance on procedures followed at a prior hearing and b) its confusion resulting from the language contained in the notice of a subsequent hearing.
The State petitions for rehearing following our opinion in Keller v. State, No. 59A01-1206-CR-271 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2013). Although we grant the State’s petition, we affirm our opinion in all regards. * * *NFP civil opinions today (3):
Because the evidence does not clearly establish that the Social Security check and the Edward Jones checks were taken from the mailbox on separate occasions, separate convictions are not warranted. We affirm our original opinion in all regards.
BAKER, J., concurs.
RILEY, J., would deny petition for rehearing.
NFP criminal opinions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 26, 2013 11:00 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions