Maryland Employment Security Board v. Poorbaugh

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These three appeals are from orders of the Circuit Court for Allegany County reversing decisions of the Maryland Employment Security Board. In the first case ■ ¹⁹⁹ the claimant was denied benefits on the strength of a finding that she was unavailable for work and had not actively sought work, as required by Section 4, Article 95A of the Code (1947 Supplement). In the second case the claimant was denied benefits because it was found that he left work voluntarily and without good cause, as required by Section 5.

In the third case, the claimant was denied benefits because the claimant was unavailable for work and had not actively sought work, as required by Section 4. In each case the Court reviewed the evidence and made findings of fact different from those of the Board. We think the Court’s orders were based on a misconception of the function of the court in these appeals. Section 6(h) “Judicial Review”, provides “* * * In any judicial proceeding under this Section, the findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined to questions of law.” We have had occasion to construe and give effect to that provision in Tucker v. American Smelting Co., 189 Md. 250 , 55 A. 2d 692 , 693 and Brown v. Maryland Unemployment Comp.

Board, 189 Md. 233 , 55 A. 2d 696, 699 . See also Johnson v. Pratt, 200 S. C. 315, 20 S. E. 2d 865 , construing the similar provision of the South Carolina Statute. We have long recognized, in other fields, the legislative prerogative to give finality to administrative