Harrison v Hinman Co
Digest no. 10.116
Cite as: Harrison v Hinman Co, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Issued Mar. 22, 1996 (Docket No. 166274).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joyce Harrison
Employer: Hinman Company
Docket no.: 92-002648-AE
Date of decision: March 22, 1996
HOLDING: For the issue of whether an employee left work or was discharged under Section 29, the burden of proof falls on the Employer. Thus the burden to prove the nature of the separation (whether it was a quit or a discharge) falls on the employer.
FACTS: The Board of Review’s decision to find in favor of the Claimant was upheld by the Circuit Court. Employer then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
DECISION: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court.
RATIONALE: Prior to reaching the question of whether a claimant should be disqualified for a quit or a discharge under Section 29 the question of the nature of the separation must first be addressed. Whether the claimant quit or was discharged. For this question, “as with most disqualification issues, the burden of proof falls on the employer.”
In this case, the dispute rests on whether the claimant quit or was discharged. The referee and the Board of Review applied the appropriate standard, and the finding in favor of the Claimant is supported by evidence on the record.
Digest author: Nick Phillips
Digest editor: Jack Battaglia
Digest updated: 8/14