RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2006; 2:00 P.M. 

Commonwealth Of Kentucky 
Court of Appeals 

VIRGINIA BERRYMAN APPELLANT 

v.

KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
COMMISSION; AND JOE HOLLOWAY, 
D/B/A HILLVIEW STUDIOS APPELLEES 

OPINION 
AFFIRMING 

** ** ** ** ** 
BEFORE: TAYLOR AND VANMETER, JUDGES; BUCKINGHAM,1 SENIOR JUDGE. 
TAYLOR, JUDGE: Virginia Berryman brings this pro se appeal from 
an August 10, 2005, order of the Graves Circuit Court affirming 
the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission’s (Commission) 
denial of unemployment benefits. We affirm. 

Berryman was employed by Hillview Studios (Hillview) 
as a telephone operator from October 1996 until December 2004. 
Berryman filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits and 
alleged that she was terminated from employment. Hillview 
opposed Berryman’s claim for unemployment benefits and argued 
that Berryman voluntarily quit her employment. Eventually, the 
Commission entered an order denying Berryman benefits and 
specifically found: 

When a worker intentionally does something 
or refrains from doing something that will 
result in termination of employment, the 
worker has, in effect, quit. The claimant 
had been warned that her job would be in 
jeopardy if she did not report as scheduled. 
Therefore, when she refused to work her 
schedule, she caused her own job separation 
and constructively quit the employment. 
Despite the claimant’s contentions to the 
contrary, the employer never agreed that the 
claimant could be absent during either 
holiday week. The claimant had obtained 
alternative transportation to get to work 
and her only reason for not reporting was 
that she had made holiday plans. The 
claimant should not have made plans knowing 
that she was scheduled to work. Her 
reasonable alternative to quitting work 
would have been to report, work as scheduled 
and rearrange her plans to fit her scheduled 
days off from work. 

Claimant failed to pursue all reasonable 
alternatives prior to quitting the 
employment. The record lacks substantial 
evidence of probative value that working 
conditions were so onerous or burdensome as 
to render the job unsuitable; nor does it 
establish that the employer was so 
unreasonable as to make the job unsuitable. 
To the contrary; the record shows the 
employer made reasonable accommodations for 
claimant’s many extracurricular activities. 
Claimant elected to quit suitable work for 
less than good cause. 

The Commission found that Berryman voluntarily quit her 
employment without good cause and, thus, was disqualified from 
receiving benefits. 

Being unsatisfied with the Commission’s decision, 
Berryman sought review with the Graves Circuit Court. By order 
entered August 10, 2005, the Graves Circuit Court affirmed the 
Commission’s denial of benefits, thus resulting in Berryman’s 
appeal to this Court for our review. 

We observe that Berryman filed a pro se brief with 
this Court. The brief fails to comply with Ky. R. of Civ. P. 
76.12. It does not include a statement of points and 
authorities, statement of the case, and fails to make any 
references to the record. The arguments raised are terse, 
unclear, and extremely hard to follow. 

Our review of an administrative agency’s decision is 
based upon arbitrariness. Am. Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville 
and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 379 S.W.2d 450 
(Ky. 1964). As an appellate court, we step into the shoes of 
the circuit court and review the agency’s decision for 
arbitrariness. Id. 

In affirming the Commission’s denial of Berryman’s 
unemployment benefits, the circuit court concluded: 

Berryman vehemently denies that she 
voluntarily quit her employment and provides 
the Court with very substantial testimony to 
the fact that she did not. Mr. Holloway’s 
testimony, as shown in pages 14 through 21 
of the transcript of evidence before the 
Commission, shows that he testified that 
Mrs. Berryman refused to come in and her 
work was consequently discharged. The 
Commission apparently accepted this version 
of the facts and found that the claimant 
voluntarily quit her employment without good 
cause. This Court is prohibited from going 
further. It cannot weigh the evidence nor 
judge the credibility of the parties, but 
only look to the record and determine that 
there was evidence to support the finding of 
the Commission. 

Upon the whole, we agree with the circuit court that there 
exists substantial evidence of a probative value to support the 
Commission’s finding that Berryman voluntarily quit her 
employment, thus disqualifying her from receiving unemployment 
benefits. In sum, we conclude that Berryman failed to 
demonstrate that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary. 

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Graves 
Circuit Court is affirmed. 

ALL CONCUR.