IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
CAROL L. CASSELL, ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 02A-02-006 HDR 
) 
BARRATT’S TEMPORARY )
SERVICES and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT )
INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD,)
)
Appellees. )
Submitted: June 20, 2002 
Decided: August 21, 2002 
Upon Appeal from a Decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
AFFIRMED 
RIDGELY, President Judge 

O R D E R 

This 21st day of August, 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears that: 

(1) This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board ("Board") that found Appellant Carol L. Cassell disqualified for 
benefits. The Board’s decision is affirmed because it is supported by substantial 
evidence and free of legal error. 

(2) Appellant, through her former employer, Barrett Temp Service 
("Barrett"), worked in a position with the State of Delaware at the Air and Waste 
Management Department for over a year. On October 5, 2001, sh e informed Barrett 
that she was leaving that job because she needed to find a job with benefits. 
Appellant responded to an advertise ment in the newspaper offering such a job. 
When she discovered that the new job was not what she thought the advertisement 
had represented, Appellant called Barrett and asked to be restored to her State job. 
As Barrett had already filled the position with someone Appellant had spent a day 
training, they declined to do so, and informed Appellant that they had no positions 
available for her. 

(3) Appellant applied for unemployment compensation benefits, and her 
application was denied by the Claims Deputy. Appellant then appealed to the 
Appeals Referee ("Referee"), who affirmed the Claims Depu ty’s decision. The 
Referee found that Appellant had left her job for personal reasons, and that therefore 
she was not qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. Appellant has 
appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") 
which denied Plaintiff’s request for further review of the decision of the Referee. 

(4) In reviewing the factual decisions of the Board, this Court must 
determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and 
free from legal error.1 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.2 The standard 
of review for this Court considering an action of the Board is whether the Board 
abused its discretion.3 A decision by the Board is an abuse of discretion if it is 
based on "clearly unreasonable or capricious grounds" or the Board exceeded the 
"bounds of reason in view of the circumstances" and "ignored recognized rules of 
law or practice so as to produce injustice."4 Absent such an abuse, the decision of 
the Board must be upheld. 

(5) Here, the Board upheld the Referee’s findings of fact with regard to the 
Appellant voluntarily quitting her employment and further held that the Referee’s 
decision was controlled by settled law. 19 Del. C. § 3315(1) provides that: 
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 

   (1) For the week in which the individual left work voluntarily 
   without good cause attributable to such work and for each week 
   thereafter until the individual has been employed in each of 4 
   subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned 
   wages in covered employment equal to not less than 4 times the 
   weekly benefit amount. 

Because the Referee had found that Appellant had voluntarily left her work without 
good cause attributable to the work, she was disqualified from the receipt of 
unemployment benefits because leaving one’s job to seek one with a better salary 
or benefits is a personal choice. Therefore, the Board denied Appellant’s 
application for further review. The Board’s adoption of the Referee’s findings of 
fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record, and its statement of the 
settled law on this matter is free from legal error. Further, the Board did not abuse 
its discretion in any way. Therefore, its decision must be upheld. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED. 

/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
President Judge 
cmh 
oc: Prothonotary 
xc: Order distribution