Court of Appeals Division III
                               State of Washington

                            Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:       18976-7-III
Title of Case:       Mike M. Okamoto
                     v.
                     State of Washington Employment Security Department
File Date:           07/26/2001


                                SOURCE OF APPEAL
                                ----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County
Docket No:      99-2-02331-0
Judgment or order under review
Date filed:     12/03/1999
Judge signing:  Hon. Salvatore F. Cozza


                                     JUDGES
                                     ------
Authored by Frank L. Kurtz
Concurring: Stephen M. Brown
            John A. Schultheis


                                COUNSEL OF RECORD
                                -----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
            Mark E. Vovos
            Attorney At Law
            Ste 100
            1309 W Dean Ave
            Spokane, WA  99201-2014

Counsel for Respondent(s)
            Daphne J. Huang
            900 4th Ave #2000
            Seattle, WA  98164


No. 18976-7-III

     SCHULTHEIS, J. (concurring)  --  Although I am required to agree with
the result reached by the majority, the allegations made by Mike Okamoto,
if true, certainly indicate unfair conduct by the Employment Security
Department.  The 'Rights and Responsibilities' booklet, on which Mr.
Okamoto relied, was not included in the record on appeal and I am not
familiar with its contents.  Presumably, it is written so that a layperson
can understand the sum and substance included therein.  If information
contained in that booklet, which is distributed to those people who are
seeking unemployment benefits, leads a claimant to reasonably believe that
wages, for unemployment purposes, could potentially include wages earned
from self-employment, the Department should be estopped from using case law
and statutes not readily understandable and/or available to the average
claimant in order to find to the contrary.
     Particularly disturbing here was the fact that when Mr. Okamoto
appeared for the December 30, 1998, hearing on the Department's denial of
unemployment compensation, the exhibits that he had carefully prepared and
delivered to the Office of Administrative Hearings were not included in the
file given to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to consider.  Mr. Okamoto,
appearing pro se, supplied the ALJ with what information he had brought
with him to the hearing.  That information was later copied for the file.
However, Mr. Okamoto had to come back to the hearing office at 8 o'clock
the next morning to bring other documentation that should have already been
contained in the file.  I can imagine that arriving for a hearing only to
find that the exhibits were missing could unnerve even an experienced
attorney.  Perhaps this is the reason that Mr. Okamoto failed to ask the
ALJ to read into the record the portions of the booklet on which the ALJ
relied.
     I concur in the result, but am deeply disturbed by the apparent
misunderstanding, which was caused by the Department.

                    /s/
                    Schultheis, J.