Duell v St Joseph Hospital – 7.11

Duell v St. Joseph Hospital
Digest no. 7.11

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Duell v St Joseph Hosp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued July 10, 1978 (Docket No. B76 14767 RO 54926).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Keith P. Duell
Employer: St. Joseph Hospital
Docket no.: B76 14767 RO 54926
Date of decision: July 10, 1978

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: A full-time college student’s credible testimony of willingness to change courses or quit school, to accept full-time employment, is competent proof of the claimant’s eligibility.

FACTS: The claimant resigned his position at a Grand Rapids hospital because he was living, and attending full-time college courses in East Lansing. He testified he would change his class schedule or drop out of school in order to accept permanent full-time work.

DECISION: The claimant is eligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “The referee, in his reasons for decision, indicated that he tended to believe the claimant’s testimony with respect to dropping his classes if he had been offered full-time work. However, the referee stated that it must be established by competent proof that the individual has actually dropped out of school in order to obtain full-time work in the past. The referee indicated that the case In the Matter of the Claim of Robert B. Burandt, Appeal Docket No. B72-9541-RO-44541, stands for this proposition for the reason that otherwise the testimony of the individual that he would drop out of school in order to obtain full-time work is self-serving testimony, and not competent proof to establish the fact without some evidence that this has occurred in the past.”

“The majority of the Board of Review believes that the case entitled Michael S. Breshgold v Michigan Employment Security Commission, Civil Action No. 77-708893-AE (Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, 1978), is controlling. The holding in theBreshgold case states that because a claimant is a full-time student does not categorically mean that the student has necessarily placed limitations on his availability so as to remove him from the labor market. Under that case, the testimony of the claimant, to the effect that he would adjust his hours or quit school to accept full-time employment, would be sufficient, if credible.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/90