State Ex Rel. Employment Security Commission v. Roberts

DeviN, J. By statute tbe determination of tbe Employment Security Commission as to -the eligibility of a claimant for benefits under tbe Act is made “conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact supported by any competent evidence.” G.S. 96-4 (m) ; Unemployment Compensation Com. v. Willis, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E. 2d 4; Graham v. Wall, 220 N.C. 84, 16 S.E. 2d 456. An examination of tbe evidence in tbe record *264 in this ease leads to the conclusion that the court below ruled correctly that the findings and decision of the Commission were supported by competent evidence. The finding of fact that this claimant had not shown he had been actively seeking work during the period referred to was supported by the evidence and must be held conclusive as to the questions of fact involved. The court’s affirmance of the conclusion based thereon will be upheld. By statute, G.S. 96-13 (c), an unemployed individual is eligible for benefits only if the Commission finds he is able to work and available for work, but he is not to be deemed available for work unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission that he is actively seeking work. The procedure here followed as to hearings and appeals seems to have been in accordance with the statute. G.S. 96-15. Appellant complained here that he did not have a hearing on his appeal from the chairman to the full commission, but we note his appeal in this instance was in the alternative, to the full commission or to the Superior Court. By G.S. 96-4 (a) the Chairman of the Commission, except as otherwise provided by the Commission, is vested with all authority of the Commission, including authority to conduct hearings and make decisions when the Commission is not in session. However, as the claimant’s only exception was to the judgment and the signing of the same, the only question presented is the sufficiency of the record to sustain the judgment. Query v. Ins. Co., 218 N.C. 386, 11 S.E. 2d 139; Crissman v. Palmer, 225 N.C. 472, 35 S.E. 2d 422; Roach v. Pritchett, 228 N.C. 747, 47 S.E. 2d 20; Lea v. Bridgeman, 228 N.C. 565, 46 S.E. 2d 555; Rhodes v. Asheville, 229 N.C. 355, 49 S.E. 2d 638. The judgment of the Superior Court is accordingly Affirmed.