SUPERIOR COURT  of  the   STATE  OF DELAWARE   
Susan C. Del Pesco   JUDGE

Submitted: November 24, 2004  Decided: January 25, 2005 

  Shyra L. Dennis
  Karen V. Sullivan, Esquire   
  Oberly, Jennings & Rhodunda, P.A.
  Mary Page Bailey, Esquire
  Department of Justice  Carvel State Building, 6th Floor

    

Re: Shyra L. Dennis, Appellant-Claimant Below v. Kingswood Community Center, Appellee-Employer Below
 and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board - Civil 

Action No. 04A-03-013 SCD   Upon appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
 denying certain unemployment benefits--AFFIRMED 

   Dear Counsel:   

On or about November 30, 2003, Claimant Shyra L. Dennis ("Dennis") filed a  claim with the Department
 of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance, seeking  unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to
 19 Del. C. $ 3301 et seq.  On  December 11, 2003, a Claims Deputy determined Dennis was disqualified from the
receipt of benefits.  On December 19, 2003, Dennis appealed the Claims Deputy's  determination. 

A hearing was held before a Referee on January 8, 2004.  The Referee found that  Dennis voluntarily
 quit her employment without good cause and was disqualified for  receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. 

On January 16, 2004, Dennis appealed the Referee's decision to the  Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
 ("Board").  The Board held a hearing on  February 11, 2004.  During the hearing, Dennis again testified
 that she voluntarily quit.  Dennis further admitted that Kingswood has an appeal process for employee
 grievances  and that she quit prior to pursuing the employee grievance appeal process.  The Board  affirmed
 the Referee's decision finding that by failing to exhaust her administrative  remedies, Dennis had voluntarily
 quit without good cause. 

On March 29, 2004, Dennis filed this appeal.  Dennis filed a document entitled  "Opening Brief" on July 13, 2004.
  Kingswood filed a response August 4, 2004.  No  reply brief has been filed.  

This Court has limited appellate review of a decision from an administrative  agency.  On appeal, this Court
 determines whether the agency's decision is supported by  substantial evidence and is free from legal error.1
  Substantial evidence is such relevant  evidence that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support
 a conclusion.2   This Court does not act as the trier of fact nor does it have authority to weigh the                                                             1Devine v. Advanced Power Control, Inc., 663 A.2d 1205, 1209 (Del. Super. 1995)  (citing General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960); Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965); General Motors Corp. v. Jarrell, 493 A.2d  978, 980 (Del. Super. 1985)). 
 evidence, weigh issues of credibility, or make factual conclusions.3  Therefore, given an  agency's specialized
 competence, this Court merely reviews whether the findings made  by that agency are adequately supported by the
 evidence.4 

I find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that  Dennis voluntarily left
 her work without good cause attributable to the work.5  The  Board's Decision is supported by substantial evidence,
 the testimony of the claimant  herself.  The Decision of the Board is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

Very truly yours,      

Susan C. Del Pesco   Original to Prothonotary   

                                                                                                                                                                             2 Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v.  Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. 1986).  3 Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66.