STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Deborah S. Johnson,
Inver Grove Good Samaritan Center,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed October 5, 1999
Department of Economic Security
File No. 1638 UC 99
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.
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.
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).