Can administrative appeals boards override ALJ credibility findings? Uintah County v. Department of Workforce Services Explained

Background and Facts

Uintah County terminated a correctional department employee in December 2011 for violating medication distribution policy. The employee had given prescription-strength ibuprofen to inmates requesting over-the-counter medication, claiming he was following instructions from a medical officer. After the Department of Workforce Services denied unemployment benefits for just cause termination, an administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed there was just cause. However, the Workforce Appeals Board reversed, finding the employee’s testimony credible that he believed he was acting properly under medical officer instructions.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the Workforce Appeals Board could override the ALJ’s credibility determinations when the Board members were not present at the original hearing. Uintah County argued that only ALJs who directly observe witness testimony should make credibility findings. The secondary issue involved whether the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that administrative appeals boards may make their own credibility determinations when reviewing the record. The court relied on United States Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, which established that administrative boards can “make [their] own findings on the credibility of the evidence presented.” Utah Code Section 35A-1-304(2) authorizes the Board to accept additional evidence and reverse ALJ decisions. The court emphasized that reading a credibility limitation into these statutes would “undermine the flexibility permitted by the statute.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that parties challenging administrative board findings must properly marshal evidence supporting those findings. Uintah County failed to meet this burden by simply rearguing its position rather than marshaling all supporting evidence. The court will assume the record supports board findings when parties fail to marshal properly. Practitioners should also note that administrative boards retain broad authority to make credibility determinations, even when reviewing ALJ decisions.