This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).


Deborah S. Johnson,


Inver Grove Good Samaritan Center,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Filed October 5, 1999
Klaphake, Judge

Department of Economic Security
File No. 1638 UC 99

Deborah S. Johnson, 8315 Ashton Ave., Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 (pro se relator)

Inver Grove Good Samaritan Center, Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, c/o Gates McDonald & Co., P.O. Box 1738, Columbus, OH 43216 (respondent employer pro se)

Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent commissioner)

Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


Pro se relator Deborah Johnson challenges the Commissioner of Economic Security's decision that she committed disqualifying misconduct after she failed to return to work or contact her employer following an approved leave of absence. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (1998) (defining misconduct). Because we may not consider the extra-record evidence relator offers on appeal and the record otherwise supports that her conduct constituted misconduct under the statute, we affirm.


Johnson failed to return to work at her nursing position following her approved medical leave of absence for panic attacks and agoraphobia. The leave of absence was to last from August 22 to November 22, 1998. At her reemployment insurance hearing, Johnson offered a November 18, 1998 letter from her doctor, Jeffrey Richards, M.D., stating that Johnson was able to return to work "in a gradual fashion working part time or on-call for the next 3 weeks." However, the employer established that Johnson declined to return to work as scheduled on November 21 and 22, was informed that she must call or come in to talk to the director of nursing regarding her status, failed to return telephone calls from her employers, and failed to respond to an ultimatum that she must come to work to discuss her status by December 5. Because Johnson failed to return to work, her absence became unexcused within the meaning of the reemployment insurance statute. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (1998) (defining "misconduct" under reemployment insurance statute); see also Gustafson v. IRC Indus., 374 N.W.2d 594, 596-97 (Minn. App. 1985); Poepke v. Downtown Standard, 356 N.W.2d 812, 813 (Minn. App. 1984).

Although the decision of the commissioner's representative was based on misconduct, Johnson's employer actually denied her benefits because it concluded that she voluntarily quit her job. Johnson claims that she did not quit and believed she was "on call." The parties disputed whether certain telephone calls were made or received between them to discuss Johnson's employment status. To the extent that the commissioner's representative made credibility determinations in resolving this issue, we will not disturb them on appeal. See Mark W. Peterson Law Offices v. Murphy, 392 N.W.2d 319, 321-22 (Minn. App. 1986) (credibility determination for fact finder); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (1998) (employee who voluntarily quits without good reason caused by employer, disqualified from receiving reemployment benefits).

On appeal, Johnson also attempts to offer new evidence that she claims "clarifies" the record. This evidence consists of a letter from Richards that further elaborates on his opinion about Johnson's ability to return to work. As this new evidence is outside the record, we may not consider it on appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1(c) (1998) (reemployment insurance decisions must be based "upon the evidence presented"); Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977) (new facts outside record may not be considered on appeal).