STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)


JOSHUA J BRUMM, Employe

C C P Q & W, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99003277WR


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for unemployment benefits in weeks 29 through 34 of 1999. He is eligible for benefits in week 35 of 1999, if otherwise qualified. He is again ineligible for benefits as of week 36, and until he is again able to work and available for suitable work

Dated and mailed July 14, 2000
brummjo2.usd : 105 : 2  AA 215

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission remanded this case in order to allow the employe opportunity to present medical evidence that his attention deficit disorder adversely affected his ability to take and pass his driver's license test. Because of where the employe lives, without a regular means of transportation the employe simply is not available for a sufficient percentage of the suitable work in his labor market area. The employe asserts that there must be many individuals without driver's licenses who are collecting unemployment benefits. This may be true, but those individuals have other methods of transportation available to them, primarily the public transit systems in Milwaukee and Madison, for example. It remains an employe's responsibility to present him or herself at the work site in order to work, in most areas of employment, and the failure or inability to do so cannot help but have an adverse impact upon an employe's availability for work.

The commission is affirming the appeal tribunal decision at this time. The commission, by March 14, 2000 order, remanded this case to allow the employe opportunity to submit certified medical evidence regarding any connection between his attention deficit disorder and his inability to take and pass his driver's license test. The medical reports were due to the Madison Hearing Office by April 15, 2000. As of mid-June, the employe had not returned them. The employe thus has not established, despite opportunity to do so, a connection between his attention deficit disorder and his lack of a driver's license. Absent such a showing, though, affirmance of the appeal tribunal decision in this case is in order.

cc: CRAIG BRUMM


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]