IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
ANGELIQUE R. DAVIS, ))
Appellant, ))
v. ) C. A. No. 04A-09-007-JEB 
) 
CHRISTIANA CARE, ))
Appellee. ) 

Submitted: April 19, 2005 
Decided: April 22, 2005 

Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 

Affirmed. 

OPINION 

Appearances: 
Angelique R. Davis, Pro Se, 148 Stanley Lane, New Castle, Delaware 19720. 
David H. Williams, Esquire, and Jill S. DiSciullo, Esquire, Wilmington, 
Delaware. Attorneys for Christiana Care. 
JOHN E. BABIARZ, JR., JUDGE

This the Court’s decision on Claimant Angelique Davis’ appeal from a decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”) denying Claimant’s petition 
for unemployment benefits. For the reasons explained below, the Board’s decision 
is affirmed. 

FACTS 

Claimant worked for Christiana Care (“Employer”) as a service assistant from 
August 2000 until May 2004. She was responsible for transporting patients back to 
their rooms after physical therapy sessions. In April 2004, Claimant was formally 
reprimanded for leaving her work area before the end of her shift. She had left her 
work area 30 minutes early without receiving approval from her supervisor. Claimant 
told her supervisors that it was customary for employees to leave work early the day 
before a holiday vacation without obtaining approval, but there was no record of such 
a practice. Claimant was placed on a decision-making leave and given a final 
warning about leaving her post without approval. 

On May 18, 2004, Claimant’s supervisor, Stephen Scruggs, went to the 
physical therapy area where several patients were awaiting transport back to their 
rooms. Scruggs found Claimant and another patient escort in the smoking area. He 
beckoned to them to come inside but they continued to smoke. He then went outside 
and asked them to return to their duties. Both escorts followed Scruggs back in to the 
building but Claimant told Scruggs that she wanted a break from all the walking.

Several days later, Claimant as discharged for idleness and for taking an unauthorized 
break.

Claimant filed a petition for unemployment insurance benefits, which was 
denied by the claims deputy, the appeals referee and the Board. Claimant appealed 
to this Court, rearguing the issues presenting below and offering additional evidence. 

As explained below, the administrative decision is affirmed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

In reviewing an administrative board decision, the Court’s role is to determine 
whether the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from 
legal error.1 Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept 
as adequate to support a conclusion.2 The Court does not weigh the evidence, 
determine questions credibility or make factual findings.3 It merely determines if the 
evidence is legally adequate to support the Board’s findings.4 

DISCUSSION 

On appeal, Claimant challenges the factual findings reached below. She asserts 
that she was taking a small break at a time when her services were not needed. She
asserts that there were other patient escorts available and that she herself could have 
been paged by Mr. Scruggs. She further contends that Christiana Hospital was trying 
to get rid of the patient escorts and that Mr. Scruggs abused his power in following 
her outside rather than paging her. Claimant submitted two letters from former 
Christiana Care employees vouching for Claimant’s honesty. The letters are not part 
of the certified record and will not be considered by the Court on appeal. Employer 
argues that the Board’s finding that Claimant was fired for just cause in connection 
with her work is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. 

Under Delaware law, a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment 
benefits if she was discharged for just cause in connection with her work.5 Just cause 
for discharge is defined as a wilful or wanton act, or pattern of conduct which violate 
the employer’s interest, the employee’s duties, or the employee’s expected standard 
of conduct.6 The referee found that Claimant was fired for just cause and the Board 
agreed. The record is clear that Claimant violated a rule and that there had been prior 
infractions about which she had been warned about her behavior: 
Lack of courtesy and cooperation – March 31, 2004 
Work performance – April 5, 2002 
Lack of courtesy and cooperation – April 3, 2002 
Work performance – March 7, 2002.

In April 2004, Claimant was reprimanded for leaving work early and placed on 
leave pending a decision as to the appropriate resolution. She also received a final 
warning. In May she took a cigarette break without obtaining the assent of her 
supervisor, and there is no dispute that taking an unauthorized break is just cause for 
dismissal. The record supports the administrative finding that Claimant was 
discharged for good cause. Claimant’s arguments on appeal are exclusively factual, 
and both the referee’s findings and the Board’s findings are well supported by the 
record. The Court finds no error of law, and the decision is therefore Affirmed. 

It Is So ORDERED. 

Judge John E. Babiarz 
JEB,Jr./bjw 
Original to Prothonotary