SUPERIOR COURT 
OF THE 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
E. SCOTT BRADLEYP.O. Box 746 
JUDGE COURTHOU SE 
GEORGETO WN, DE 19947 
April 7, 2004 
Ralph J. Mooney John E. Tarburton, Esquire 
A-26 Potnets Bayside Sergovic & Ellis, P.A. 
Longneck, DE 19966 9 North Front Street 
P.O. Box 875Georgetown, DE 19947 
RE: Mooney v. Tunnell Companies, L.P. 
C.A. No. 03A-08-001Date Submitted: January 29, 2004 

Dear Mssrs. Mooney and Tarburton: 

This is my decision on Ralph J. Mooney’s ("Mooney") appeal of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeals Board’s (the "Board") decision denying his application for unemployment 
insurance benefits. The Board’s decision is affirmed for the reasons stated herein. 

Factual Background 

Mooney was employed as a seasonal grass cutter for Tunnell Companies L.P. ("Tunnell"). 
Tunnell would lay Mooney off in the winter and re-hire him in the spring. Mooney’s doctor told him 
to stop working in October 2002 because of health problems. Mooney applied for unemployment 
benefits on January 26, 2003. Tunnell did not re-hire Mooney in the spring of 2003 because it was 
aware of his health problems. Mooney’s doctor released him to light-duty work on June 5, 2003. 

The Board found that Mooney was ineligible for benefits prior to June 5, 2003, but that he 
was eligible for benefits after June 5, 2003. 

Standard of Review 

The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate 
review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. The function of the reviewing Court 
is to determine whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, Johnson v. 
Chrysler Corp., 312 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965); General Motors v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 
(Del. 1960), and to review questions of law de novo. In re Beattie, 180 A.2d 741, 744 (Del. 
Super. Ct. 1962). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 
A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrsyler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del.), app. dism., 515 
A.2d 397 (Del. 1986). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of 
credibility, or make its own factual findings. Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66. It merely determines if 
the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency’s factual findings. 19 Del. C. § 3323. 

Discussion 

The findings of the Board, specifically that Mooney was not eligible for benefits during 
the period from January 26, 2003 to June 5, 2003, are supported by substantial evidence in the 
record. Mooney’s own documents show that he was medically unable to work during the period 
in question and he testified before the Referee that his doctor told him to stop working. 
Delaware law requires that for an unemployed individual to receive benefits, he must be able to 
work, be available for work, and be actively seeking work. 19 Del. C. § 3314(3). The Referee 
found that, based on the medical forms submitted by Mooney’s doctor, Mooney was totally 
disabled from performing his duties and not permitted to do any other work. Thus, the Referee 
found that Mooney was unable to work and ineligible for benefits. No evidence presented to the 
Referee contradicts this conclusion. While the Board was presented with new evidence causing 
it to modify the Referee’s decision, it nevertheless adopted the Referee’s findings to the extent 
they were supported by evidence available at the time of the Referee’s hearing and upheld the 
Referee’s determination that Mooney was ineligible for benefits prior to June 5, 2003. 

Mooney does not argue that the Board committed an error of law in reaching its 
determination. Rather, Mooney challenges the factual findings of the Board. Mooney contends 
that he was able and available for work during the period from January 2003 to April 2003. That 
contention is contrary to the evidence. Mooney’s contention that he was temporarily disabled 
from April 2003 to June 2003 and did qualify for unemployment benefits is also contrary to the 
evidence. 

Conclusion 

This Court is bound by the Board’s findings of fact in the absence of fraud and if they are 
supported by substantive evidence in the record. Since there is substantial evidence in the record 
to support the Board’s decision, the Court must uphold its determination. Thus, in light of the 
foregoing, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Very Truly Yours, 
E. Scott BradleyESB:tll 
cc: Prothonotary’s Office 
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board